She has put the Brexit leaders in high profile positions so they either succeed or fail. If they fail, they’ll be the first scapegoat, not her.
She is sending a clear message that the UK government has heard the peoples’ message. They want change. They do not want the old guard who defended “Stay” still in charge.
What fantastic news, eh? Some of the good consequences of Brexit I was hoping for but expected to take a decade to achieve are beginning within a day of Theresa May becoming UK PM.
May UK PM May lead the world to a renewal of The Age of Enlightenment.
And May we please have a May PM for Australia too please.
Trump’s poll numbers have improved somewhat. From the article:
…
Nervous Senate Democrats raised concerns with Hillary Clinton during a private meeting in the Capitol Thursday over a recent poll showing Donald Trump leading or tied in several battleground states.
“Some people were freaked out, they were looking down at the polls on Real Clear Politics and asking why it was so close,” said a Democratic senator who attended the meeting, referring to a website lawmakers were checking out on their personal devices.
Clinton’s response?
“She said there are other issues. People are unhappy and they don’t trust institutions,” the senator explained.
Johnson, a noted global warming skeptic and leader of the campaign to leave the EU, will now represent Britain on the international stage, including at negotiations at the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).
The Department for Energy and Climate Change has be merged with the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to create an entirely new governmental body.
The Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy will be headed up by Greg Clark MP, formerly the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government.
Theresa May made the appointment as part of a far-reaching cabinet reshuffle that saw the former Secretary for Energy and Climate Change, Amber Rudd, bumped up to Home Secretary. . . .
May has generally voted against measures to prevent climate change. She has specifically voted in favour of selling England’s state-owned forests and against the greater regulation of fracking to extract shale gas.
From the article:
…
“It sounds like here we go again,” he said. “We’re living in a whole different world. There’s no respect for law and order.
“This is crazy what’s going on,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee added. “It’s a horrible thing. It’s bedlam … We have to get awfully tough and we have to get smart or we’re not going to have a society, we’re not going to have a world anymore.”
Trump said he would sharply restrict immigration from countries with likely terrorist ties in the wake of the massacre.
“This has to be dealt with very harshly,” he said. “I’d be making it very, very hard for people to come into our country from terrorist countries.”
Energy companies in Colorado are spending millions of dollars to derail a push by environmentalists….
Environmental groups are now gathering signatures for two statewide initiatives that would transfer regulatory control of oil and gas development to local governments and create more stringent setback requirements to keep oil and gas activities away from occupied structures.
A study by the Colorado Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, a state agency tasked with encouraging energy development, found that 90 percent of the surface acreage in Colorado would be unavailable for oil and gas development under the new setback laws.
As messy as it’s been, the Redimowit party is coalescing around Trump. There are still some stragglers, but the specter of Cr00ked Billary looms on the horizon. Even some Dimowits in the gutted Heartland are turning towards Trump. She is looking for any chink in his Teflon suit, but the polls are turning on her. It will be interesting how she handles desperation. Her anticipated coronation, may be melting in her grasp.
Future historians will conclude the MSM was more interested in helping the Left demonize George Bush than of helping to fight the enemy at the beginning of WWIII.
France is said to have strict gun control laws but the terrorist in Nice, France used a truck full of grenades and other arms as a weapon of mass destruction.
Wee Weasel Willard wheezes about WMD and War. So, I suppose he thinks the US should have stayed out of war altogether in the Middle East?
What about this? And, I’m not saying the US should have jumped in. This war was initiated in the UN. Would this war NOT upset the militant Muslims? If practical, I would be quite happy to see the Middle East implode and destroy itself.
So, you must be Pro Trump, who came out against the Iraq war, unlike Hillary, who voted for it. And she engineered Libya, and was secretary of state when ISIS came to power. I think she quit because she made such a ME mess it was better to put some distance between the mess and her candidacy.
Danny, “If Newt had proposed a similar suggestion that those who ‘teach Christianity’ (as an example) be ‘expelled’. I have to wonder how that response would be received. (Guessing I’ll find out shortly after posting this because I’m a ‘lefty’.)”
You could say the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas were “expelled” for teaching that their laws were above the laws of the land. Newt’s reference to Shira, or Shira Law, is that those teaching that their religious laws allow them to rape, pillage, plunder and kill in spite of the law of the land that prohibit rape, pillage, plundering and killing are a danger to society and should be expelled.
If you talked with a moderate Muslim, they would mention that “Islamists” are one group that believe in a global caliphate and the execution of several groups of individuals in a rather strict interpretation of Shira law.
I believe there are close to 1000 hate groups under surveillance in the US that claim a number of faiths that your average liberal wouldn’t mind expelling, unless they happen to be a constituency.
“unless they happen to be a constituency.” That’s funny, and may include the dead huh? But at least I don’t see anyone actually suggesting they be deported (at least not yet).
Danny, “That’s funny, and may include the dead huh? But at least I don’t see anyone actually suggesting they be deported (at least not yet).”
The dead vote does tend to be a democratic block :) I believe there are a large group of immigrants that don’t have citizenship which could be deported plus if you take an oath of allegiance to a foreign state, like say ISIL, you can be expatriated. I believe Newt is a bit of a historian :)
Yes, he is a noted historian. And has a bit of a shady side (as do many of ‘the political persuasion’) as ascribed to his being reprimanded by the house.
Had he suggested the ‘removal’ of non citizens only I might have zero heartburn with his word choices. And for those who pledge allegiance to other than the U.S. we have treason oriented laws which could then apply.
Notwithstanding that an Invasion followed by an occupation is not exactly a war, jim’s claim is more of a “curveball” than anything else:
The invasion consisted of 21 days of major combat operations, in which a combined force of troops from the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland invaded Iraq and deposed the Ba’athist government of Saddam Hussein. The invasion phase consisted primarily of a conventionally fought war which included the capture of the Iraqi capital of Baghdad by American forces with the implicit assistance of the United Kingdom, Australia and Poland.
Yeah as soon as I heard Newt say we should test Muslims for belief in Sharia and deport them if found in support it was made apparent that Pence was the better choice for Veep. Newt can really stick his foot in his mouth on rare occasions.
To be fair though in order to deport someone they cannot be citizens so he was necessarily not talking about Muslim-Americans. Knowing that however is beyond the grasp of lesser minds so Newt’s real sin is in not dumbing down his speech so people like Danny Thomas can understand it.
Gingrich may be doing this to open up some breathing room for Trump.
It seems to me that Trump has softened his anti-Muslim rhethoric. It is only natural that he would do this in an attempt to re-position himself more toward the center for the general election. Gingrinch, by staking out a more extreme position, makes Trump seem more moderate in comparison.
Trump has segued from banning Muslims to banning people from terrorist countries. It takes religion, race, ethnicity, whatever; out of the equation. Smart move.
The question in my mind is this: Will Trump put an end to neoliberalism and the US/NATO imperial adventures in North Africa and the Middle East? These, in my opinion, are the ultimate, if not the immediate, causes of the mass immigration and mayhem now being experienced by Europe.
An article you posted on the last politics thread answers the question with a big “NO!”:
However, I very much disagree with the conclusion this article comes to.
Trump is somewhat of a wild card, an unknown, because he has no track record as a policy maker that we can scrutinize.
Clinton, however, has a very long track record, and everything about it screams neoliberal and neoconservative, putting her in the same league with Blair and Bush.
Your mind is the lesser of my concerns, Glenn. Outside of it, there are lots of questions. I mean, lots. Just take all the questions that we could ask Delegate Donald about Paladino’s “hung for treason”:
Then it destroy’s the rule of law, preferring instead the rule of strongwomen who set themselves above the law.
Then, when all hell breaks loose, the establishment tries to blame it on racial or religious differences, or the police, or guns. Any whipping boy will do, just so long as we don’t look too closely at the guys and gals in charge.
What are they going to blame the violence on now? Trucks?
And here’s some more “Change you can believe in”: the rapid decline in race relations in the United States since Obama took office that has come about due to overplaying the blame game:
The only major political figure I’ve seen of late to make a major issue of the structural causes of racial tension and violence, more than just the obligatory tip of the hat, is Newt Gingrich:
SEAN HANNITY: You’re also saying that we cannot ignore the socio-economic conditions that many Americans are still suffering under…
Now the president said by every measure, everybody’s better off. By every measure that I see everybody is worse off, and the people who are most disproportionately negatively impacted by all this is the minority communities in America.
NEWT GINGRICH: And Black teenage employment has become horrendous, 60%. That leads to alienation and the sense that no one cares about them and that they have no future. And that’s about as dangerous as you can get.
There are things which are more ‘dangerous’.
“Even Gov. Mike Pence, Trump’s apparent vice-presidential pick (which Gingrich lobbied hard to become), labeled Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban “offensive and unconstitutional.”
Another bit of disingenuous propaganda from Danny the Lefty. There is no Const. Amendment that says the US can control who can immigrate. They aren’t citizens. We can keep them out for whatever reason we choose.
Jim2,
That may well be. But that is NOT what Newt proposed. You’re quick to damn me for ‘leftiness’. How about a word of rejection of Newt’s proposal which impinges on the 1st amendment of the constitution. Unless, of course, you’re willing to give up those ‘rights’. Then, I suppose, we play a game of pick and choose.
Newt has the right idea, but it may not be implementable in the form he suggests. We could start prosecuting treason again, that could be legal and help a lot. Imam’s that encourage killing infidels could be put to death for treason.
I am not sure that not all women in Islam could be called able to exercise their free will and surely Sharia courts are there to interpret the will of god rather than the law o the land? Of course the law of the land should trump everything, but in practice in closed societies sharia will be taken as the final word.
Tonyb,
Free speech (even for Newt whom suggest we go against the 1st’s right of freedom of religion by ‘expelling’ those who teach Sharia with no regard for citizenship) is a valuable right.
My issue is the selective use of the amendments. If one goes in any fashion towards restraint of anything pertaining to the 2nd (gun rights) then it’s all out responses in support of the amendment. Yet here, Jim2 (&Newt) seem to support limitations of applicability of the 1st’s (freedom of religion).
If Newt had proposed a similar suggestion that those who ‘teach Christianity’ (as an example) be ‘expelled’. I have to wonder how that response would be received. (Guessing I’ll find out shortly after posting this because I’m a ‘lefty’.)
Tonyb,
Further thought. We’re effectively discussing ‘extremism’. IMO it’s an ‘extreme’ response to be willing to ‘set aside’ the rights of any citizen to lead us towards some ‘ideal’ of a particular segment of the entirety. The ‘entirety’ is all of the U.S. citizenry. Not those groups with whom one disagrees. Much like marriage, it takes work to live in our republic. The easy choice is to remove rights of those with whom we disagree. The tougher choice is to enforce the rights detailed in the amendments for all. Selectivity is an immature approach.
First things first. It’s important to get all the facts, and not just part of them.
First priority should be to get Gingrich’s comments straight from the horse’s mouth, and not filtered through the highly elitist lens of the billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post, which has shown itself to be one of the most biased propaganda rags around:
VIDEO: Gingrich response to Nice attack: We Should Test Every Muslim in U.S. And If They Believe In Sharia Deport Them
Newt’s words (from your link): “We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door. We need to be fairly relentless about defining who our enemies are. Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail.”
No freedom of religion in that suggestion. “Every person” “Deported” (even citizens?). Maybe Newt needs a ‘highly elitist’ filter, but I won’t suggest that occur as it would impinge on his right to free speech.
Nice ad hoc rescue, quickly changing the subject to another topic.
But what’s your opinion on the structural causes of violence? Do you believe they exist? Do you believe they are important? Do you believe they need to be addressed? And if so, how?
“But what’s your opinion on the structural causes of violence? Do you believe they exist? Do you believe they are important? Do you believe they need to be addressed? And if so, how?”
“And if so, how?” My first choice would not be removal of the rights detailed in the amendments.
The rest is above my pay grade. I have opinions, but they are exactly that, opinions. Some are distasteful even in my own mind. But I look to the guidance of the constitution and associated amendments for a road map.
Can you detail answers to the questions you posed? Actually, I’d only be concerned with the last one. Would you propose ignoring the 1st amendment in order to achieve that which you perceive to be the ‘desired’ outcome? This is Newt’s suggestion. Thoughts?
Again, my issue is with the selectivity of application of the bill of rights. It surprises me when some who support a portion of those rights come out in defense of one who wishes to selectively apply them.
I know nothing of Jeffery Goldberg nor his qualifications, but here’s an interesting perspective one might wish to consider: “For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, Gingrich ought to call for the investigation of these sharia-supporting Israelis.”
Thankless Euros have been using global warming to back-stab America for decades. France was to have a pass from the beginning based on being mostly nuclear. Germany’s built-in protection from ever paying a dime came from being provided credits for replacing all of the dated and unproductive communist-era energy production facilities in East Germany (which is what Germany would have done irrespective of Gore’s anti-America carbon-trading scheme). Bush had the temerity to support America with his whole heart and call BS on the raping America’s free enterprise economy to fund relentless expansion of Western socialism; and, that is why the Eurocommies and the Leftist establishment and MSM in the US still hate Bush.
Danny, had to leave for a bit. Thinking about this a bit more, Sharia LAW is that part of Islam the defines the GOVERNMENT of Islam, not the religion; even though it is based on the religion.
In the US, we need to make it legally very clear that no law other than US law is legal in the US. It would be ILLEGAL and therefore punishable by US LAW to practice Sharia LAW. Anyone who practices Sharia LAW could then be deported or jailed, preferably deported.
Jim2,
Aha! Common ground. I agree that ‘our’ law trumps. Having said that, how does one go about ‘enforcement’ of religious oriented systems which are more strict than ‘our’ law? That is a completely different conversation than one which ‘bans muslims’.
We can get there Jim, just not at the cost of restrictions on our constitution/amendments and that was the issue I have with Newt’s proposal. A bridge too far.
You may see me as ‘a lefty’ yet place a mirror in front of your face when you realize that I’m suggesting that an interpretation of the 1st is in fact more along the lines of a non selective approach. Much as you’ve done with the 2nd.
If we wish to discuss no immigration for any without vetting (to be determined) then that would not be selecting out any particular group. I fear for the slippery slope and where it leads.
As a follow up, no where am I suggesting Clinton as an improved alternative no matter how much you wish to read that in to my words. Still looking for reasons to vote ‘for’ a candidate.
But my questions are not about Locke’s political liberalism, but about another Enlightenment notion: the belief that “men would not come in conflict with one another, if the opportunities were wide enough.” (Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History) “This assumption was shared by our Jeffersonians with the French Enlightenment.”
As Azar Gat explains:
The more the rulers and elite were able to use their control over the machinery of the state and their socio-economic clout to coerce or sway the social body, the more it meant that it was mainly for the attainment of their interests that politics — and war — were geared….
The glaring inequality in the distribution of the benefits and costs of war has contributed to the Enlightenment belief that the occurrence of war was made possible only because of that inequality, wherein an elite minority harvested the benefits of war while leaving its risks and price to the rest of the population.
— AZAR GAT, War in Human Civilization
Many, including Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Bill of Rights), argue that the political liberalism you speak of was impossible if economic inequalities were too great.
Speaking of the French officers who fought in the Ameerican War of Independence, Jefferson warned:
You will carry our sentiments with you, but if you try to plant them…you will encounter obstacles more formidable than ours….
[In France you have] twenty millions of people…. [T]here are nineteen millions more wretched, more accursed in every circumstance of human existence than the most conspicuously wretched individual of the whole United States.
Not for a moment did it occur to Jefferson that people so “loaded with misery” — the two-fold misery of poverty and corruption — would be able to achieve what had been achieved in America.
And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who, finding himself in Paris, thought:
often of the happiness of New England, where every man is a Freeholder, has a vote in publick Affairs, lives in a tidy warm House, has plenty of good Food and Fewel….
According to the Founding Fathers, the “reason for success and failure [of the American Revolution] was that the predicament of poverty was absent from the American scene but present everywhere else in the world,” writes Hannah Arendt in On Revolution.
I believe you are focusing too much on a narrow interpretation of Gringrich’s comments. Widen your perspective and don’t get hung up trying to dissect what are media talking points, not actual policy.
Advocating for adherence to Sharia law can be framed as advocating for sedition. There are numerous claimed religious practices which are not considered legal in the US
Throwing “ism” words around like that is all well and good. However, that’s not how we address Wag’s argument:
France is said to have strict gun control laws but the terrorist in Nice, France used a truck full of grenades and other arms as a weapon of mass destruction.
More expedient seems to be a simple transposition:
America is said to have immigration laws but those of Mexican heritage use all kinds of tools to invade our country.
Since Wag seems to infer opposite conclusions in both cases, it seems to me that this kind of argument should be dropped.
It would be nice if we could return to yesteryear when when people spoke in complete sentences. He did say that Shira (law) is incompatible with western civilization. Pretty much every western civilization has destroyed itself trying to become more “civilized”, so I would be more concerned with what is really compatible with the changing concept of western civilization.
I’m sorry, but I don’t think we can blame ‘misunderstanding’ on the media this time.
“Here’s a transcript:
So let me start with where I’m coming from, and let me be as blunt and as direct as I can be: Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. ”
Seems pretty clear, blunt, and direct (as advertised). Yes, he went on to complete his thought but I’m just quoting his words from the transcript. Maybe it’s not a problem with incomplete sentences but instead it’s a problem with incomplete thought or poor expression.
I don’t disagree with the ‘we’re at war’. And ‘that side’ doesn’t play fair so ‘this side’ must be ‘tough’. But at the expense of our rights? Don’t think that’s the correct path way and don’t support it. If this kind of thinking is accepted then the terrorists have already won and the ‘war’ is over (and we’ve lost).
What he expressed, even if mispoken, is what he expressed. And it’s certainly not a problem with ‘the reporting’.
There is something to be said about a student (or professor) of history: “MARCH 28, 2003: “A hateful regime will be gone, and except for Saddam, French President Jacques Chirac and the media analysts, almost no one will have had the sky fall on the them.”
The teachings of the scientific method that we as a civilization successively and successfully managed to carry with us and nurture within us from its formative days since the time of the Greeks, has been a casualty of the Academia/UN alliance, a wedding of ideals that are grounded in their mutual opposition to the despised, foundational principles of Americanism (which is based on a respect for individual liberty and the need for personal responsibility, guided by a Judeo-Christian heritage and the liberal philosophy of the founders that are now branded by the Left as, conservative ideals).
For the CNN editors, yesterday was all about Melania’s “plagarism” and the “disunity, anger and disarray” of the “anti-Trump rebellion.”
Never mind what the “anti-Trump rebellion” was advocating, that the will of the millions of helots who voted in the Republican primaries be ignored:
Anti-Trump delegates attempted to force a roll call vote that would allow individual delegates to ignore the primary results in their home states and instead vote their conscience.
Thing is, as I’ve said before, the hideously unfair way the MSM has treated Trump probably brings him more votes every time it happens.
I wonder what proportion of Trump supporters despise the MSM the way I do. I wonder how many people who (like me) despise the MSM decide that anybody they hate that much has got to be OK.
Not that I would necessarily agree with the latter, but the converse is certainly true: anybody who’d make an even halfway good president would get the same sort of treatment from the MSM.
Interesting page (with which I’m sure you’re all familiar) is Wikipedia’s “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming”. This is where I learned about Dr. Curry and this blog.
As regards the list, Dr. Curry is preceded (alphabetically) in the first tab on said webpage by Piers Corbyn (brother of Jeremy). The narrative on his page is astonishing. He has a bachelor’s in physics and master’s in astrophysics, but because he lacks a PHD his opinions on climate change somehow don’t matter?!
I was reminded of this while reading the comments here. In any case, I’m looking forward to following this blog and learning from you all.
Watching MSNBC report on the Nice horror and hearing their “experts” say the worst thing we could do in response is criticize Islam or tighten down on immigration of Muslim migrants. Also hearing these nitwits say that the chief reason for these attacks are US foreign policy.
Meanwhile the list keeps growing all over the world, including places where Jihad is waged against all unbelievers and US foreign policy has no effect whatever……so far this year:
1268 Islamic attacks in 50 countries, in which 11664 people were killed and 14087 injured.
Not disputing your figures at all, but there were some 16,000 homicides in the US in 2013.
I assume that some were for religious reasons, but the result for the victims was the same. The US has around 5% of the world’s population, so the total of 12,000 deaths you report throughout the world is fairly minor by comparison with the US.
It’s a tricky area. People often call for the death of those with whom they disagree, and react with delight when informed someone has their life terminated. Smiles and handshakes all round!
On the other hand, those same people sometimes wring their hands in despair, and furiously oppose those who wish to end their own lives for perfectly rational reasons.
It’s a funny old world. A quiet life seems to suit me.
Actually you miss the point completely (but points for the false equivalence). The deaths reported were strictly to do with Islamic terrorism. That means that all other homicides committed by Muslims are NOT counted.
Also hearing these nitwits say that the chief reason for these attacks are US foreign policy.
So you believe there is no blowback to the neoliberalism the US and its NATO allies imposed on North Africa and the Middle East, nor to the imperial adventures the neocons tricked us into?
Earth to Glenn – our rights, way of life, the Constitution, liberties, etc are being trampled on because of the terrorists!!! WE are already paying the political costs for these people. We are spied on 24/7 in the name of terrorism. Our gun rights are challenged in large part due to terrorism.
We have to do what’s best for us and let the Devil take the hindmost.
Are you unaware that the United States has a long history, either directly or indirectly through its allies in the region, of supporting militant Islamic extremists?
A defining shift in Carter’s Islamic policy — one whose consequences for 9/11 would be significant — was when Brzezinski and his aide Robert Gates from CIA, on July 3, 1979, persuaded Carter to send secret aid to Islamist militants in Afghanistan….
By using Islamic fundamentalism against the Soviets, Brzezinski clearly regarded himself as a master chess player (to adapt the metaphor of his book The Grand Chessboard)….
The decision to work with Saudi and Pakistani secret services meant that billions of CIA and Saudi dollars would ultimatley be spent in programs that would help enhance the globalistic and Wahhabistic jihadism that are associated today with al Qaeda.
And ever since that fateful day in 1979, the US and its NATO allies have continued to fund and support Islamic terrorists.
Here is but one of many examples that I could cite:
A Syrian archbishop has pleaded for the British Government to stop backing Islamist rebel groups who he said were in fact “fundamentalist jihadis who want to kill everyone who is not similar to them”.
Jean-Clément Jeanbart, the Archbishop of Aleppo, said the UK was inadvertently helping to bring about the destruction of Syria by funding such anti-President Assad groups.
He also said Britain is “investing in jihadis and mercenaries who are killing anyone who is saying anything about freedom, citizenship, religious liberty and democracy”.
It was a “big lie” that moderate rebel forces in support of freedom and democracy were at war with the Assad regime, the Archbishop told MPs at a House of Lords meeting this week organised by Aid to the Church in Need, a charity set up to help persecuted Christians.
He said the four-year civil war was a contest between a modern secular state and jihadis who were destroying its culture and massacring religious minorities.
Archbishop Jeanbart accused the Western media of presenting an inaccurate depiction of the conflict. “Please, I ask you, I beseech you to have another look at our situation to see what is underneath what is happening,” he told a meeting organised by Aid to the Church in Need, a charity set up to help persecuted Christians.
So what’s more imporant? Putting a stop to terrorism? Or regime change in Syria so that Europe, assuming everything else works like clockwork, can break Russia’s stranglehold on Europe’s natural gas suppy?
Trade association Oil & Gas UK responded to the news Thursday afternoon by issuing a statement in which its chief executive, Deidre Michie, said:
“Offshore oil and gas is one of this country’s greatest industrial success stories and must remain a linchpin of a UK industrial strategy. Yet we are at a critical juncture and we need to work with government to address low levels of exploration and development in the North Sea and send a strong message that the UK Continental Shelf is a great place to invest in.”….
[T]he elimination of DECC could be a signal that May’s government will pursue an energy strategy for the UK that is more concerned about economic growth and less concerned about the country’s impact on carbon emissions and climate change. May has a parliamentary record of voting favourably on such issues as shale gas fracking in the UK.
If the Greens and anti-nukes can take devolpment of domestic energy supplies off the table, that makes resource wars in the Middle East and North Africa seem much more plausible.
According to a StatsCan report from 2012 – the most recent year available – the U.S. suffered a total of 8,813 murders involving the use of firearms that year. Canada, in the same year, recorded just 172 firearms-related homicides.
We (Canadians) have 10% of the population of the US, yet we don’t have 10% of the murder rate by firearms. Just under 2% of the US rate.
I wonder why?
Peter Lang, I live in a country with strict gun control laws, far far stricter than the USA, that has one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world. For the record I don’t own a gun and don’t want to.
Thank you. Of course, when making such comparisons of murder rates or rates of gun related deaths (which is what we need to compare, not muder rates) between different countries, cultures, religions, etc. there are many other factors that have to be accounted for. That’s why, in my earlier comment, I compared countries that have roughly similar HDI. US is 10 times worse than Canada and 50 times worse than UK.
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.
A closing thought on what is happening around us, is that we are all responsible for letting the economic powers ‘that be’ attempt to destroy nations and their sovereignty. The governments that assisted their efforts are now in the cross-hair of anyone with a truck. We need to clean this mess up with truth and justice but really transparent this time. No need for another government study it is a fact of life today.
I suspect the cr1m1nal gangs in Canada have guns, but I get the impression gang membership is relatively minor in Canada. But, instead of guns, cr1m1nals will find other weapons that are even worse than guns.
This is why the idea of outlawing guns in the US is so stupid. People cherry-pick their arguments while ignoring reality. Guns aren’t a problem for law abiding citizens in the US. And if you exclude homicides carried out by criminal gangs, guns become an insignificant cause of death compared to automobiles or a huge number of other causes.
From the article:
…
The Quebec Biker War (French: Guerre des motards; “Bikers’ War”) refers to the violent turf war that began in 1994 and continued until late 2002 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
The war began as the Hells Angels in Quebec began to make a push to establish a monopoly on street-level drug sales in the province. A number of drug dealers and crime families resisted and established groups such as the “Alliance to fight the Angels”.
The war resulted in the bombings of many establishments and murders on both sides. It has claimed more than 150 lives,[1] including some innocent bystanders such as Daniel Desrochers, an 11-year-old boy who was fatally injured by shrapnel as he was playing near a jeep that was blown up.[2]
… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Biker_war
The Hells Angels (should be Hell’s, but the group is not known for upholding literacy) is a California export. Maybe Canada should slap on an import tariff on it.
One reason is because Canada is a country populated by milksops which continues to exist as a sovereign nation largely due to the umbrella of safety provided by your gun and freedom loving neighbor to the south. It would be taking its marching orders from Vladimir Putin if that protection were removed.
Another reason is Canada has a very small black population at just 2%. Over 50% of the homicides in the US are committed by just 12% of the population (black). Political correctness generally prohibits the mention of this sobering fact.
Remove that subset from US numbers and our rate of gun deaths falls to the middle of the pack of EU countries. But you are right, that’s politically incorrect to point out.
We also have a much higher rate of auto deaths than countries with few cars. We like and have lots of guns and cars. Nothing wrong with that. Guns are great. I love them and so do most of the people I know. We also have a large rural population that does lots of hunting. I am a pistol shooter.
From the article:
…
The Quebec Biker War (French: Guerre des motards; “Bikers’ War”) refers to the violent turf war that began in 1994 and continued until late 2002 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
The war began as the Hells Angels in Quebec began to make a push to establish a monopoly on street-level drug sales in the province. A number of drug dealers and crime families resisted and established groups such as the “Alliance to fight the Angels”.
The war resulted in the bombings of many establishments and murders on both sides. It has claimed more than 150 lives,[1] including some innocent bystanders such as Daniel Desrochers, an 11-year-old boy who was fatally injured by shrapnel as he was playing near a jeep that was blown up.[2]
… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Biker_war
I suspect these people have guns, but obviously they also found an alternative that was much worse. I get the impression Canada doesn’t have as large a gang problem as the US.
John Robertson, Wonder why? Hockey. The Canadian murder rate is very close to that of the US but lazy Americans would rather shoot someone than bludgeon them to death or chase them down to stab them. I noticed that the homicide rate among aboriginals was about 5 time higher than the general public. Must be a glitch in the statistics unless they have obesity issues.
“I wonder why.” Do you? Or are you happy to assume that correlation equals causation?
How about Switzerland? According to your calculations, its murder rate should exceed the US. It, uh, doesn’t.
But as others pointed out, the murder rate in the US is largely caused not by guns but by a much larger and meaner collection of criminals. I.e., the Drug War. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, Swiss and Canadians who became American citizens don’t commit many murders either.
I posted this in tribute to the French nation at the time of the last atrocity. It grieves me to feel the need to post it again. A Quintessential French song celebrating their unique culture combined with wonderful scenery and Silly British Humour. Play loud and think of the French this morning and what they have had to endure over the last year
Tonyb, I never put Mr Bean together with Charles Trenet…but it works.
As a redneck Francophile (admittedly, we’re not numerous), I have faith in France. Those who think the French don’t fight must have missed Verdun. Plus most of the rest of history.
And the collectivists/globalists haven’t always had their own way there. They got to write the history for a couple of centuries, but history is catching up with them. http://www.inthevendee.com/vendee-wars/vendee-wars.html
Those who think the French don’t fight must have missed Verdun. Plus most of the rest of history. http://qi.com/infocloud/france
French Military Victories
The ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ tag immortalised by Homer Simpson, has contributed to a general sense of the French as cowardly losers. But the French have arguably the best military record in Europe. According to historian Niall Ferguson, of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have fought in 50, more than both Austria (47) and England (43). And they achieved an impressive overall batting average: out of a total of 168 battles fought since 387 bc, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.
The British rightly pride themselves on their naval superiority, but this was largely born out of the certain knowledge that we would never win a land war on the continent. Over its long history, the French army was usually the largest, best-equipped and most strategically innovative army in Europe. Most of the words used in modern warfare derive from French words, such as: army, artillery, captain, cavalry, charge, espionage, general, lieutenant, lance, marines, manoeuvre, military, mine, naval, parachute, pilot, platoon, regiment, soldier and trench.
At its maximum strength, under Napoleon, the French army achieved a feat that even the Nazis couldn’t repeat: they entered Moscow. Contemporary accounts of French military prowess were glowing with military historian and soldier General Sir William Napier (1785-1860) commenting: ‘It is well known with what gallantry the [French] officers lead and with what vehemence the troops follow’. British Coldstream guardsman, John Mills said that ‘their movements compared with ours are as mail coaches to dung carts. In all weathers and at all times they are accustomed to march, when our men would fall sick by hundreds.’
I was there during last winters carnival and more recently while Euro2016 was going on. On both occasions security was very strong and all passed without incidents, and I assume that it would have been so the last night too.
The local authority led by C. Estrosi is extremely well aware of possible terrorist attacks in the city, ensuring that there is adequate presence of police and soldiers on the streets. I don’t think that the last night attack could have been stopped without heavy military vehicles patrolling the Promenade, which is normally closed to the traffic for the number of popular events.
I like the French as well, especially the women. What you see is what you get and they don’t put up with crap from foreigners on their patch, especially when a war is on.
You may not agree with her politics, at only 26 years of age, she is one of the most intelligent politicians in France. In the last regional elections she came close to winning second round of regional elections (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur) and only thanks to the unholy alliance of conservatives, socialists and communists she was defeated.
Marion can really handle those bombastic French media luvvies with their patronising face-pulls and infantile gotchas.
Though much less touchy than her aunt, the young lady comes back fast and sharp in interviews, is ready with facts and doesn’t take a backward step or unnecessary breath…except to smile sweetly.
Doesn’t mean she or any of the family will be desirable or even effective national leaders. But now is definitely the time for some creative destruction, and Marion’s a wrecking ball.
“Without the direct and indirect assistance of France, it is doubtful that Americans could have won the war for independence. From 1776 to 1783 France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result. The French national debt incurred during the war contributed to the fiscal crisis France experienced in the late 1780s, and that was one factor that brought on the French Revolution. In the end the French people paid a high price for helping America gain its independence.”
The US military doesn’t seem to be achieving much in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, and didn’t do too well in Somalia or Vietnam either.
Speaking of jokes – the F35? The US national debt? Want more?
The French and Australian people have a lot of empathy whereas certain high IQ types who tend to Aspergers syndrome and demonstrate very little empathy with humans or any other life form. This has been amply demonstrated on this blog.
You start knocking around the US’s national mythology, regardless of how far it departs from reality, and you might get knocked around too.
I don’t think it would be understating the situation to say that most Americans are as patriotically correct as what left-wingers are politically and CAGW correct.
I did not know Marion was a thing in the anglosphere. She’s certainly not in the francophony.
Please note that the transcript omits a few words:
[A]re accomplices de l’islamism that kills French.
I’d thread lightly in my adoration of young French woman who declares war to islamism and dogwhistles actions that her constituency must accept out of necessity.
It would seem we are both francophones, Willard. So I wonder how you conclude Marion is not “a thing” in the “francophony”. And I wonder why you made a fuss about “killing French” being omitted from the transcript…especially when the English words “which kills French people” do in fact appear in the transcript of the video.
But if Marion starts taking millions into a family “foundation” from arms manufacturers and Gulf States I’ll certainly tread lightly in my “adoration”. Especially if she is, shall we say, frequently unwell.
Auntie Marine is already depending on Russian banks. Of course, she’s just borrowing, while Bill Clinton cops straight donations from Uranium One, now Russian controlled. Then there’s that Moscow speech for which he got $500,000 from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin and Uranium One.
> “which kills French people” do in fact appear in the transcript of the video.
Quite furtively. The video is 49 seconds long, and the subtitle only appears when Marion fades out and “Le Journal” appears. The previous frame, with the “are accomplices of that islamism” subtitle, lasts from 0:45 to the end of 0:48.
The “that islamism” is incorrect, BTW – she says “l’islamisme,” which targets the whole indefinite group.
I conclude that Marion is not “a thing” in the francophony because it just isn’t – it’s a local phenomenon, contrary to aunt Frexit, who recently came for a visit.
Seems the Clinton Email saga isn’t over after all? http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-charges-poll/
Note, though, that most respondents said that Clinton should have been indicted, and most respondents said that their opinion on this wouldn’t affect their vote even if it was for Clinton. Not all the same people, but wow.
My faith in the common man is undergoing rapid replenishment as we speak. Actually I think the problem with the common man has never been stupidity but has rather been apathy. Common sense is highly undervalued. That belief is what separates me from the majority of my intellectual peers more than anything else. My intellectual peers have little common sense and little ability to recognize or appreciate it in others. Obama is a prime example. And I use intellectual “peers” loosely. Obama’s a smart guy I’m sure with an IQ possibly in the 99th percentile. I’m in the 99.97th percentile so he’s still a slow thinker compared to me.
Most people only find it necessary to have one IQ test, to join Mensa for example, as I did, many years ago. Remember that the bulk of the population have never sat such a test but there would be heaps of very bright people among them I feel sure.
They were not voluntary tests. You should stop making assumptions. At your age you’ve had plenty of opportunity to learn better.
Specifically PSAT in junior high school (won a NYS Regents scholarship for highest score), military GCT required for placement (got the highest score the regional recruiters had ever seen) then the SAT right before leaving the military 4 years later required for university enrollment.
Every one of them were identical in the percentile placement. Interestingly being away from school for 4 years in the military made no difference.
Both the SAT and military GCT are acceptable for admitance to high IQ societies but I’ve never join any club which would have me for a member. Several other tests over the years but those were all voluntary. I’m off the measured scale in math having gotten a perfect score on the SAT with plenty of time left over. This was the old SAT before the re-centering in the 1990’s.
High IQ is an interesting trait. The high IQ individual doesn’t necessarily know more or arrive at better conclusions. The most notable feature is the high IQ individual thinks faster. Sorts through patterns and possibilities at a high rate of speed to arrive at the correct answer sooner than others. That builds upon itself and translates to speed of learning which does eventually lead to a high store of knowledge. I was scoring at college level in vocabulary tests before I was ten years old. I corrected teachers when they made a mistake in class. The good ones loved having me and the poor ones were threatened. For most I was the brightest student they’d ever had or ever would have. It’s an interesting and novel experience being the smartest guy in a room full of adults when you’re just a child. I’m not sure I’d recommend it.
Point taken about making assumptions, David, many people do it, though, especially on blogs. Thanks for sharing your experiences as a child. I had mild aspergers as a child but soon grew out of it.
I never think much about my intelligence level but was able to compensate for not hearing anything to speak of by lip reading and quickly picking up as I went along as a child. As an adult I am more comfortable in the written word but still consider myself to be pretty easy to get along with in most social settings.
My score was not quite as high as yours but still high enough to be a nuisance if I wanted to be, but unlike you I never showed it to the outside world. I lived a lot in my mind and didn’t worry what people thought, because for the most part their POV was laughable and not worth arguing over.
I don’t have Aspergers. Not a hint of it. I grew up in a blue collar environment in New York. This is how we talk. Then I joined the Marine Corps where salty language is traditional. I felt right at home. If you don’t like it that’s too phucking bad. Not my problem.
He might lose a bit of that with his vice presidential pick. Hard to tell. Will definitely get the Republican party to consolidate behind him though. It was a tough call. Newt is brilliant in almost any measure political or otherwise, a great orator, but is a bit of a loose cannon and prone to thinking way outside the box. Given Trump’s own loose cannon nature I guess the decision was based on the premise “there can be too much of a good thing”. One loose canon is enough. I ceased second-guessing Trump some months ago. And that’s based on the premise “don’t argue with success”.
Incredible as it seems Trump is going to win in a landslide. He’s got common sense, street smarts, top shelf business education, old school upbringing starting before he could walk by a father in the construction business, not afraid to say what he thinks in language the average Joe Blow can understand, genuine love for America and American culture, repulsed by progressive stupidity and multi-culturalism, not a right-wing evangelical Christian nutcase, not a war-monger, has so much wealth already he can’t be bought, raised several children who are smart and successful… the list of things that are just what our country needs goes on and on. If it weren’t for the tiny hands he’d have no flaws!
Running a successful presidential campaign on a comparatively tiny budget is exactly what we need in a president. Knows how to get the most bang for the buck. Will cut wasteful spending in Washington like a scythe through wheat if he has a mandate and popular support to do it.
I’m curious about those who support Hillary. Why? I can’t think of a single redeeming feature. That can’t be right. She has to have some good qualities, qualifications, etc.
If you believe that US federal government is corrupt and purchased by whatever special interests pony up the most money, and you have no real problem with that, then Hillary has by far the most experience at it. Trump didn’t nickname her “Cr00ked Hillary” for no good reason. She’s as bent as bent gets.
The gang stats are notoriously unreliable, I mean how many gang members fill out questionnaires asking how many murders by fire arm did you commit this year? Blacks comprise 12% of the population in the US. On guns in the US, here is the main point:
…
Most troubling, though, was the rate difference between ethnicities: firearm-related fatality rates for African-Americans were twice as high as the reported rates for Caucasians.
… http://www.newsweek.com/gun-deaths-us-twice-high-among-african-americans-caucasians-273071
Yeah along with the fact that blacks commit homicide at 8 times the rate of whites… ironically their victims are 8 times as likely to be black. We need to be candid about the problem before we can solve. Inner city black culture needs to be systematically disassembled by any means necessary for the good of everyone and none more so than inner city blacks who are their own worst enemy.
My chronological age includes 12. Twit at times, sure. But here, in this context, I’m much more than the two choices you offered.
Why do you have such an issue with my challenges to those who offer unsubstantiated assertions? (This is a much better question than yours by the way). Arm waving elsewhere is frowned upon. Yet gains so much acceptance in these political threads as much from you as any.
This is a political forum, not a science forum. I’m not all about echo chambers. Many have expressed faith based decision making. This is not in my comfort zone. Many have made cases for Trump yet those cases are based on little in the policy realm. The amazing part to me is watching the science oriented discussions which rail on the ‘faith based’ orientation of those more climate concerned yet here, when I do exactly that, you wish to castigate me for doing so. So Tim, next time someone goes against someone who professes their ‘faith’ in the CAGW I’ll be looking for you to call them on it.
That in and of itself is interesting. Dontcha think?
Hey Danny, I’ll bite. Channeling my British ancestors I’m thinking penal colonies might work. Surely we can purchase some sh*t-hole country in Africa and turn it into a giant prison. Hire locals to run it. It will save us the astounding cost of prisons here in the states and make recidivism someone else’s problem since few of the inmates will have the means to get back to the hood upon release.
Or we could try things like education and jobs programs that require relocation out of the inner city and contract forbidding a return. Combine that with draconian law enforcement and instead of banning soft drinks served in large cups and added salt by restaurants ban fried chicken and watermelon.
The truth about Billary supporters is that a significant number of them consider the law to be an inconvenient nuisance. They just don’t care if Billary is a cr1m1nal, in fact a significant number are cr1m1nals themselves.
From the article:
…
A Washington Post/ABC News poll, released Monday, found that 56% of American adults disapprove of the FBI’s decision, while 35% said they approved. But a majority — 58% — also said the issue would not affect their vote in the 2016 presidential election.
… http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-charges-poll/
Yes despite the driver shouting “allahu akbar” (translated to english from raghead: allah is great) they weren’t sure if it was related to Islam or not.
A few years ago I was running a company and we caught a couple of people embezzling. A top tech guy with complete access to our computer system got in cahoots with the financial controller. An affair was involved. Federal prosecutors will tell you this kind of nasty collusion is rampant these days. They were systematically looting our cash flow, and, given their respective positions, able to cover their tracks. When they found out I was bringing in more financial oversight (the tech guy had tapped into my email) they knew the jig was up.
If You’re Going to Commit a Crime, Destroy the Evidence
Unknown to anyone, they began destroying evidence as fast as they could. They ordered a shredder (yes, at company expense) and had it shipped to the controller’s apartment, where they furiously disintegrated satchels full of documents they had spirited from the office: financial records, expense reports, receipts—everything incriminating. The tech guy, a long-term, highly trusted employee, wiped everything, including backups.
I am curious– who really believes the Left give 2 schitts about what happens in France? If Left really believes CO2 is the big problem and the future of Earth hangs in the balance, shouldn’t Left want America to be more like France– e.g., use nuclear power plants to generate 86% of our power instead of 20%? The Left, of course, only hates it that America has nuclear power and the only reason the Left pretends to care what happens in France is because France despises the US. All of the Eurocommies hate America.
After the leftwards turn of the US in recent years I am not sure that much of Europe is too much different to America any longer. Euro commies? No. euro socialists, yes, sometimes
From the article:
…
The chief police witness in Parliament said that an investigating officer, tears streaming down his face, rushed out of the Bataclan and vomited in front of him just after seeing the disfigured bodies.
According to this testimony, Wahhabist killers apparently gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were stabbed in the genitals – and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.
… http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/
That link is very disturbing, I had not even heard rumours that this allegedlyhappendedd. I was prepared to dismiss it but then I saw the author was Louise mensch. She was formerly a Tory mp and whilst that in itself does not mean the story is correct, it does lend an element of credibility.
Surely if it were true other media would have reported it?
Yes I’m curious too. What do you imagine is presidential-caliber?
Both candidates are qualified being they are over 35 years of age, native born Americans, and having been residents longer than 14 years.
I could’ve picked a better president than Obama by throwing a dart while blindfolded at a list of Houston dock workers. Maybe not San Francisco dock workers though, if you get my drift.
(a trait that isn’t what it sounds like — we’ll get to that)
Fyi– “Psychoticism is a personality pattern typified by aggressiveness and interpersonal hostility. High levels of this trait were believed by Eysenck to be linked to increased vulnerability to psychosis such as schizophrenia.” ~wiki
Now we know what it is that drives the Left to eschew the scientific method, preferring instead to create a make-believe world where CO2 is a poison that causes runaway global warming and then indulge in the fiction of man-caused climate catastrophism.
Greenpeace said it was concerned that the new Government did not view climate change as a serious threat..
John Sauven, the campaign group’s executive director, said: “The voting record and affiliation with climate sceptics of key cabinet appointees are deeply worrying.
“They show a lack of understanding posed by climate change to the UK and the world.”
Green Party MP Caroline Lucas described the decision as “deeply worrying”.
“Climate change is the biggest challenge we face, and it must not be an afterthought for the Government,” she said.
Craig Bennett, chief executive of Friends of the Earth: “This is shocking news. Less than a day into the job and it appears that the new Prime Minister has already downgraded action to tackle climate change, one of the biggest threats we face.”
Stephen Devlin, an environmental economist at the New Economics Foundation: “This reshuffle risks dropping climate change from the policy agenda altogether – a staggering act of negligence for which we will all pay the price.”
Has the Democratic Party evolved into a national version of Tammany Hall? I can see several similarities: the tolerance of corruption, the loosening of immigration laws to develop loyalty from specific ethnic/religious groups, the dolling out of patronage benefits (aka welfare) to their loyal supporters, and the fomenting of racial/political violence. It took forever to get rid of Tammany Hall’s grip on the boroughs of New York–it seems that eventually their leaders just became too corrupt to be tolerated. Reformers from within the Democratic Party eventually finished them off, but, sadly, I see no desire for reform from within the current Democratic Party.,
In the meantime, let’s just hope that the violence in Cleveland next week does not surpass the 1863 draft riots.
The two Americans, father and son killed in the Nice terrorist attack, live just a few miles from me on the same small lake. I can’t imagine the wife and other two children flying home with the bodies.
Obama then comes on TV today and talks about everyone just needing to hold hands and be nice to each other. He’s a starry-eyed imbecile. A typical libtard in other words. This is the result of eight years of failed leadership by the so-called leader of the free world and policies that do not work. Obama chickens are coming home to roost.
What did Trump say just a few days ago?: “This is a time, perhaps more than ever, for strong leadership, love and compassion. We will pull through these tragedies.”
Guess he shoulda left out the love and compassion part, huh?
How in the world, after David chose to castigate Obama for saying much the same as Trump did just a few days ago so I reminded him of same, does that make me a putz?
Call out David for the way he portrayed things or consider stopping ‘putzing’ yourself. Double standards are not a good look.
Trump didn’t actually say that? Hmm. Someone oughta tell his campaign and web site admin. It kinda says ‘Donald J. Trump Statement’. Maybe it’s a problem with the reporting.
Surely you don’t think Obama was reaching out with a hug to terrorists. Maybe you did and your ‘Duh’ was mislocated.
TimG56,
Yes indeed he is. But reading between the lines I’ve been taught here, is fraught with potential issues.
From my perspective, I’ve asked for specifics and received little. It’s entertaining that you’ll defend his approach and deny me mine. Why might that be? Could there be a ‘confirmational bias’ in play? You find me ‘foolish’ (Twit, was your word choice) for wanting to nail down the ‘real’ Trump before I decide for whom to vote.
Clinton has too many warts to support outright. Trump is more of an unknown. Asking to know more about the unknown is opposite of foolishness (unless you are all about the big C in CAGW….are you?). And you know that.
Speaking of changing subjects:
“A report from the Director of National Intelligence says, as of July 15, 2015, that 17.9 percent, or 117 of all 653 detainees released from Guantanamo since it opened in 2002, have been confirmed of reengaging in terrorist activities. Another 79 detainees, or 12.1 percent, are suspected of having returned to terrorist activities based on “plausible but unverified or single-source reporting.”
That’s 30 percent, as Christie said. But it spans two presidents, not just the current one as the ad implies. Christie is heard in the ad saying “30 percent of the people the president has released from Guantanamo.”
How many of the detainees released under Obama have returned to terrorist activities?
The September 2015 national intelligence report said that 4.9 percent, or six of the 121 detainees released since Jan. 22, 2009, two days after Obama was sworn into office, have been “confirmed of reengaging” in terrorist activities, and another 4.9 percent are “suspected of reengaging.” That’s a total of nearly 10 percent.
On the other hand, almost 35 percent or 184 of the 532 detainees released under President George W. Bush have been confirmed or are suspected of returning to terrorist activities.”
Try again Tim. Obama, while maybe not the finest president ever is not the sole blame for all the evils in the world. Try some facts and stop with the unsupported assertions which are in fact in error. http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/christie-pac-wrong-about-gitmo/
And bringing this back to the conversation at hand, how does Obama’s use of ‘love and compassion’ (not directed towards terrorists) not compare with Trump’s use of same (also, not directed towards terrorists).
I remind you again that a double standard is not a good look.
You’ve already decided you won’t vote for Trump, Danny. Stop pretending otherwise by asking for more policy specifics. It’s like if I was saying I might donate money to #BlackLivesMatter if they would be more specific about their goals. Duh.
Well then you know more than I do as I’ve not decided for whom I’ll vote.
Look, I’ve stated too many times I’m an Independent. Socially liberal, fiscally pretty darn conservative.
Making the case for Hillary’s qualifications (and they are IMO unquestionable both good and bad) is just a sheet of paper and a pro/con column.
I don’t have the same kind of information about Trump, for who your bromance is abundantly clear. What I have isn’t any more/less attractive than Hillary (but he’s more entertaining). I think I could live with Kasich. I’d like a Jon Huntsman type guy if I could choose.
Stop with the crystal ball nonsense. You have no idea.
And maybe a well off person such as yourself could prove an fine example of ‘reaching across the aisle’, as it were. Please do donate. It might come across as an olive branch no matter which ‘side’ one is on.
“Barry Soetoro has consistently defended Islam since his childhood in Indonesia where he was indoctrinated.”
You do realize there is some percentage, 1% I see, who are Islamic in the U.S. Not a high percentage but some 3.3 million real live people.
Which ‘group’ should he not defend?
Oh, and from the first ‘outrageous quote’: (context anyone?)
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. ”
See ‘the future’ and wonder why the Islam segment was selected. Cherries?
“The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. (Applause.)
The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. (Applause.)” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly
Shocking news. This morning’s Baton Rouge cop killer was a former Nation of Islam member. Maybe he didn’t pay his dues or something and got kicked out of the club. His marksmanship however is courtesy of the United States Marine Corps. You really have to be careful with pissed off jarheads…
“You do realize there is some percentage, 1% I see, who are Islamic in the U.S. Not a high percentage but some 3.3 million real live people.”
“Which ‘group’ should he not defend?”
Muslims. Every last goddamn one of them. They’re free to practice it so long as they break no laws and the rest of us are free to hate it for the misogynistic intolerant phucked up cancer on the face of creation that it really is.
I am SO sick and tired of being told I have to be tolerant of all religious beliefs like they’re all equal and good. Some are just plain f*cked up. Islam is one of those. Positive atheism is at least as harmful and is more widely practiced. The problem with it is there’s no absolute moral authority. No guiding force and ultimately no judgment or accountability other than peers. Muslims at least have an absolute moral authority that transcends peers. The problem is that the morals are messed up and incompatible with a western Christian democracy. Like or lump it the US is a Christian nation and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’m not a practicing Christian myself but I can sort out the good from the bad in belief systems and Christianity demonstrably produces a culture that works well all things considered. Countries where the Protestant reformation took hold have produced the highest living standards in the world today. Never argue with success.
This is not a lecture, just some self examination and reflections on your comment.
“Look, I’ve stated too many times I’m an Independent. Socially liberal, fiscally pretty darn conservative.”
I, too, am socially liberal and fiscally pretty darn conservative. But I am certainly not Independent. I cannot conceive of being independent any more I don’t even know what socially liberal means any longer. What court rulings, Federal, state or local laws or institutional reforms need to be enacted that have’t been to reflect liberal values? That was not the case 60 years ago. But now what public policy changes should a Liberal be pushing for today? I don’t know. We have spent over $50 Trillion since the LBJ Great Society began and have we progressed as a civilized society? Recent events make me wonder. The early years of my college years were spent studying the social sciences in the early 1960s, with hopes of being a social worker or psychologist. How could anyone at that point in our history and attuned to the awakening of the Civil Rights era not be a bona fide Liberal. And so I was.
I was stationed in the South while in the Army in 1967 and spent a good deal of time in a small town in South Carolina. Being from the North, I was aghast at a “Negro” walking off the sidewalk into the street as he approached me. I was revulsed seeing the “colored” drinking fountains and the sign on the local theater with a sign “colored up stairs” I delighted at their squealing delight when the blacks in the balcony reacted to Sydney Poitier slapping the white plantation owner in “In the Heat of the Night”. I said to myself “Right On”. How could there still be this stuff going on, I asked myself. After all LBJ got all that wonderful legislation through. You mean the South hasn’t changed in those 2 years? Gee, apparently legislation and the best of intentions don’t always change things overnight.
Now what do Liberals stand for? Censoring free speech with ad hominem attacks resembling tactics in North Korea. Being the thought police with attacks of racism, homophobe, xenophobe and misogynist against anyone having a different public policy proscription than the most virulent Liberal view. Use of those words have driven them into being meaningless. Liberal today means being for spending Billions more each year without even pausing to wonder about the efficacy of all the social program spending. If you are against increased spending for social programs, apparently you are a racist. Thus is the simpleton kind of thinking.
Not all solutions originate in DC. Cultural evolution comes at glacial speed.
I no longer buy into this utopian belief in the perfectibility of the human species. In our core we are little different than we were thousands of years ago. Enacting more so called “progressive legislation” is not going to change that.
Hopefully, from this social liberal, you’ve not witnessed “Being the thought police with attacks of racism, homophobe, xenophobe and misogynist against anyone having a different public policy proscription than the most virulent Liberal view.” If so, a lecture is due to me.
“Enacting more so called “progressive legislation” is not going to change that.” What we need is removal of the label ‘progressive’ as it carries connotations. ‘Common sense’ would be an improvement.
And to be clear, it’s fine for him to do so. We use the tools we’re provided and make them work for us as best we can. Self interest and good business.
I learn from you guys all the time. Don’t always agree (obviously) but I read. And that leads me to look further.
Being the thought police. No, I’ve never seen anything from you indicating you are part of the thought police. I was taking myself on my journey from Liberal then pausing shortly at independent to being a conservative not able to vote Democratic no matter who the Republican candidate is.
I’m an arithmetic conservative. If the numbers don’t work, they don’t work. The growth of Debt is far worse than we had post WWII and the outlook for GDP being able to handle the Debt is dire. The call by Liberals to increase taxes on the rich as a way to reduce the annual deficit is a pipe dream. Having millionaires pay the same effective tax rate as they did when the top marginal tax raate was 91% would reduce the deficit by only 25%.
I also find Trump’s plan to grow the economy enough to address the Debt wishful thinking. I agree with him that growing the economy is the best way to reduce the Debt. IF we could grow the economy. I just think we have approached a new phase in global economic growth when nothing can produce the level of real GDP growth that we experienced in the 20th century.
AK
The debt service costs are virtually the same as 20 years ago even though Debt Held by the Public has gone from $3 trillion to $14 trillion. Zero interest rate policies are masking the potential impact on the budget. When, not if interest rates normalize, there will be a race to have growth in the economy and tax revenue outpace growth of interest payments. If we return to 20th century real growth levels then no problem. I’m not convinced the productivity record back then was not a one off experience. Japan uses 40% of their tax revenue to pay interest costs of their debt. Money that could be used more efficiently by the private sector or by government for other purposes.
The poll — which asked Sanders supporters whether the Vermont senator’s endorsement of presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton changed their opinion — found that 48 percent of respondents said they would vote for a third-party option.
Another 39 percent said they would support Clinton and 13 percent said they may support presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump.
From the article:
…
The 28th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs shows that “76 percent” of respondents believe armed citizens reduce violent crime.
An even higher percentage–nearly 88–stated their conviction that “any vetted citizen” should be able to purchase a gun “for sport or self-defense.”
According to the survey, nearly “87 percent” of police chiefs support national reciprocity of concealed carry permits. National reciprocity would treat concealed carry permits like a driver’s license, making the concealed carry permit of any state valid in every state. This would do away the headaches law-abiding citizens get by trying to remember which states recognize their permit and which do not. It would also make life easier for patrol officers during a traffic stop by giving them a more unified set of permit rules to remember.
… http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/07/15/survey-police-chiefs-76-percent-say-armed-citizens-help-cops-fight-crime/
Devoted to one of the world’s most beautiful cities and its kind and gentle people, I have been visiting for nearly half a century. https://youtu.be/iX5hisr5KwY
We intend to visit Nice this Autumn in order to show solidarity with the French. Its many years since we were last there-transiting through the place on our honeymoon in Corsica some 35 years ago.
Nice combines the best of the French and Italian culture and cuisine (except for the local ‘socca’, best avoided). Nice is the Garibaldi’s birth place and it was ruled by the dukes of Savoy before they became kings of Italy. Referendum to move from Italy to France is surrounded by a bit of controversy since Garibaldi claimed that the vote was rigged by the French.
The current mayor Christian Estrosi (of Italian origin, recently elected as the president of the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region) has done lot for the city during his time in the office. As a republican, he was overruled on a number of controversial matters by the socialists from Paris.
Young Marion Maréchal-Le Pen (26 year old, highly intelligent granddaughter of the old and a now senile Jean-Marie Le Pen) was a formidable NF challenger for the post of the regional president.
NICE, France (AP) — French interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve says that the truck driver who killed 84 people when he careened into a crowd at a fireworks show was “radicalized very quickly.” Speaking to journalists at the Elysee Palace in Paris, Cazeneuve said Saturday that the case demonstrated the “extreme difficulty of the fight against terrorism.”
Republican Donald Trump’s selection of Indiana Governor Mike Pence as his running mate cheered the U.S. energy industry and dismayed green advocates, with both sides citing Pence’s support for coal mining and defiance of President Barack Obama’s climate-change agenda.
Trump, the presumptive Republican presidential nominee, has called climate change a hoax and promised to gut U.S. environmental regulations in order to help the ailing oil and coal sectors. A Trump-Pence ticket will quash any expectation that the New York businessman might soften that stance heading into the Nov. 8 election….
In June 2015, Pence wrote to Obama saying that Indiana, America’s eighth largest coal-producing state, would not comply with the Clean Power Plan regulating power plant emissions, calling it “ill-advised.”
In 2014, Pence alarmed local environmental groups by overturning an energy efficiency program enacted by his Republican predecessor, Mitch Daniels, saying it was too expensive for the state’s manufacturers. The Indiana Public Utility Commission had estimated the program would create more than 18,600 jobs.
“The choice of Pence shows Trump has little interest in appealing to anyone outside of his extremist base and Big Polluters,” said Clay Schroers, a director at the League of Conservation Voters environmental group.
Trump has long signaled his support of traditional energy production – part of his broader appeal to blue-collar American voters.
He outlined plans in May to sweep away environmental regulations ushered in by Obama, scrap the Paris Climate Accord, and revive the Keystone XL pipeline proposal – moves that would reverse years of gains by the green movement.
Trump’s Democratic rival, Hillary Clinton, in contrast, has promised more stringent regulation of the energy sector, efforts to boost renewable fuels use, and a commitment to join other nations to combat global climate change.
The latest CBS poll showed national security and terrorism to be the second most salient issue on voters’ minds (1 in 5), right behind the economy and jobs (1 in 4).
And on the issue of national security and terrorism, it showed them to be in a dead heat, tied 46-46 percent.
Some more news on Delegate Donald has yet to overturn the decision of federal judges, this time five days later:
A federal judge struck down an obscure element of Virginia’s presidential primary laws Monday, handing a symbolic victory to a Republican National Convention delegate who has refused to support [Delegate Donald]. U.S. District Judge Robert E. Payne permanently barred Virginia from enforcing a law that requires a winner-take-all system in which the first-place finisher of the GOP primary would technically be entitled to all 49 of the state’s delegates. The statute conflicts with the Republican Party’s primary rules, which allocate Virginia’s delegates proportionally based on the primary results.
I hate to break it to you Willard but the goal is to get the current establishment on both sides out of Washington. Or at least make examples of enough of them that the rest get with the program.
Say wasn’t it hilarious how Pence leaked [the news of VP choice] where he shouldn’t have like a puppy that hasn’t been house trained yet? Then Trump put out a campaign logo that looks like Trump letting Pence have it where the sun doesn’t shine? Boys will be boys. Nobody, absolutely nobody, would have approved that logo without seeing the symbology. Hilarious. It lasted less than 24 hours. Possibly less time than the Star of David.
The Star of David by the way was a secret message for Hillary that Trump’s real top advisors are his Jewish daughter and Jewish son-in-law. There goes the banking industry, Hollywood, and Florida among other things. And don’t forget Jews are the original Muslim haters. They invented it.
The Trump party (formally GOP) has an interesting political platform:
Source, Time Magazine story, 7/11/16.
Among the provisions is an assessment that internet pornography is a “public health crisis.”
“Pornography, with his harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and wellbeing,” the amendment stated.
An amendment offered by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in the subcommittee on healthcare, education, and crime offered support for the controversial practice of “conversion therapy” for children who identify as LGBT.
“We support the right of parents to determine the proper treatment or therapy, for their minor children,” the amendment said. Perkins originally drafted a more explicit embrace of the practice, but amended the text after consultations with top RNC officials. Perkins’ amendment, which passed the subcommittee and subsequently the full committee.
Observations:
If we can figure out how to remove porn from the internet why not other types of content like Islam or Mormonism? Beginning with the assumption that anyone producing or consuming Porn is a social deviant (like drug addicts and LGBT people) there will be at least 1/2 the citizens that must be be identified from the general population. Will it be another War on Drugs boondoggle? Will they try to implement a mass conversion therapy program?
It seems the two should be related. Somebody should do some scientific research to perfect this conversion therapy technology, it could come in handy for other social diseases like having the wrong ideology.
And while there are certainly a large number of LGBTs who walk in lockstep with the Democratic Party, that trait is not universal. There are still a handful — maybe 25% — who will vote Republican, and who are skeptical of the “historical truths” proclaimed by the Clinton Ministry of Truth:
Disappointment with Hillary Clinton’s version of how the Defense of Marriage Act became law is bubbling into public conversation among activists.
During an interview with Rachel Maddow on Friday, Clinton described her husband signing DOMA in 1996 as a “defensive action,” meant to stave off passage of a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage.
But that’s not how activists on the ground remember the fateful law’s passage.
“It’s just not true,” wrote Michelangelo Signorile in a column today for The Huffington Post. “There was no talk, among activists, antigay forces or politicians, of a constitution amendment in 1996 when Clinton signed DOMA.”
I’m Pro conversion therapy technology and I hope you are too Glenn. Please, for your own safety and the future of our children support this important government initiative.
Conversion therapy could help a lot of people if it works. Why not let individuals decide if they want to try it or not? What if there were assh0le conversion therapy. You’d probably want people like me to have it available, right, in the unlikely event I find myself not wanting to be an assh0le anymore? It’s not easy being a dick in our society. I’m looked down upon, people don’t want me around, and so forth and so on. I’m persecuted. You probably think I’m an assh0le by choice. If it were a choice who would make it and why? So imagine it isn’t a choice but something I can’t change. Assh0les are born that way. If an LGBT person can be born that way and others should accept them why can’t assh0les find the same public support? It’s cruel, unfair world.
Trump has said that marriage is between a man and a woman, but according to the New York Times, he has “nurtured long friendships with gay people, employed gay workers in prominent positions, and moved with ease in industries where gays have long exerted influence, like entertainment.”
Trump also said in an NBC interview that he opposed North Carolina’s ban on individuals using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex.
Pence has been more hard-nosed on LGBT rights. In 2015, he signed a “religious freedom” bill in Indiana that critics argued would have allowed businesses to refuse service to LGBT people on the basis of religious freedom. After facing backlash, Pence signed an amended version into law.
From the article:
…
“But who are millennials?” she said. “Now we are finding out that they are living with their parents.”
“They don’t have the initiative to go out and find a little apartment and grow a tomato plant on the terrace,” said Stewart, who is 74 and still working full-time.
“I understand the plight of younger people,” she said. “The economic circumstances out there are very grim.”
“But you have to work for it,” said Stewart. “You have to strive for it. You have to go after it.”
Y’all heard sayings like 60 is the new 40 giving which gives a nod to modern 60 year-olds being as healthy as yesteryear’s 40 year-olds.
Well so far the way I have it figured is that 30 is the new 20 when it comes to becoming a self-supporting adult. Nothing to be worried about these kids will likely live to an average age over 90. They have an easy extra ten years of life on the front end to spend at home with their loving baby boomer parents.
For those from the younger generation, they are NiNis by choice. But for older folks, given the dire state of the Mexican economy, they are NiNis because they were forced out of the labor force. It’s the worst of all worlds.
Interesting. Along with the CBS/NYT poll that’s both the two biggest libtard rags in the nation with Trump ahead or tied respectively. That’s gotta hurt.
And Hillary has outspent Trump in campaign advertising by a factor of 40 so far. What then happens when The Donald’s machine starts rolling? It’s gonna be a slaughter.
The Democrats are the ones that need to pull a fast-one at the convention and somehow replace Hillary. The Establishment that let her be the nominee by seniority rather than quality phucked up big-time. That bitch’s baggage has baggage.
David Springer: LA Times Poll has Trump ahead of Hillary 43:40
In 1973 Republican Howard Baker of the Senate Watergate Committee asked this question: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”.
Now an equally serious question is “What did the Secretary of State know and when did she know it?” The true answer is potentially as serious to H. Clinton’s public support as the true answer to Baker’s question proved serious to Nixon’s public support. As with Clinton (at least so far) party politics practiced by Republicans in power protected Nixon from indictment and trial. As with Clinton (at least so far) Nixon admitted (somewhat belatedly) to a “mistake”, when the details supported an indictment. Clinton looks as guilty of a crime to me now as Nixon looked guilty of a crime to me back then. Also like the case of Nixon, Clinton has been spared the ordeal of testifying under oath and for the record. I am a little surprised by liberal friends of mine from that era, who agreed that Nixon had committed a crime and not just a “mistake”, who are giving Clinton a pass on this.
I am hoping that the poll results come from the details of the email debacle sinking into more and more of the public consciousness. AG Lynch may believe that there is a difference between “extreme carelessness” (FBI director Comer) and “gross negligence” (text of the law). I doubt that a majority of voters are so inclined.
let me rephrase something. Republican party politics protected Nixon from indictment; so far, Democratic party politics has protected Clinton from indictment.
[Dreamlike Donald]’s introduction of Mike Pence was shocking. Forget the political mainstream. What happened today sat outside the mainstream for normal human behavior.
It began in irony. Before Pence, before [Dreamlike Donald], there was an empty podium, and the Rolling Stones blasting through the speakers. It had been widely reported that few top Republicans were willing to serve as [Dreamlike Donald]’s running mate. It had been widely reported that [Dreamlike Donald] was unsure about Pence, that he had regretted the decision almost as soon as he made it, that he had sought ways to reverse himself. Hours before the announcement, [Dreamlike Donald] tweeted that Pence was “my first choice from the start!”, which is a thing presidential candidates typically do not need to say.
[…]
What started as farce continued as farce. [Dreamlike Donald] emerged without Pence. He spoke, alone, at a podium adorned with [Dreamlike Donald]’s name, but not Pence’s. And then [Dreamlike Donald] proceeded to talk about himself for 28 minutes. There is no other way to say this than to say it: it was the single most bizarre, impulsive, narcissistic performance I have ever seen from a major politician.
Really? You bringing this kinda stuff here? ” and insofar as the presidential campaign is a test to see who has the character, the discipline, and the seriousness to be President of the United States,”
From the article:
…
On July 12, DeSoto, Texas, police said they issued a report on a robber who entered a Waffle House with an AK-47, only to be shot and critically wounded by an armed customer with a handgun.
The incident occurred about 2:30 a.m., and according to The Dallas Morning News, police reports witness accounts that a 26-year-old man entered the Waffle House with an AK-47 and “robbed numerous people as well as the business.” One of the patrons was an armed concealed carry permit holder, and out of concern for his wife, he followed the armed robber into the parking lot — the concealed permit holder’s wife was on her way to the restaurant.
About Pence, I don’t think it matters so much what the Democrats are saying about him. He will appeal to what Trump needs most. The base. The Democrats can preach to their choir all they want, Trump needs the base.
Obumbles takes the same approach as Hollande, even worse by saying “love” will defeat the terrorists. Imb1c1le. From the article:
…
For French President François Hollande, the enemy is an abstraction: “terrorism” or “fanatics”.
Instead, the French president reaffirms his determination to military actions abroad: “We are going to reinforce our actions in Syria and Iraq,” the president said after the Nice attack.
So confronted with this failure of our elite who were elected to guide the country across nationals and internationals dangers, how astonishing is it if paramilitary groups are organizing themselves to retaliate?
In France, the global elites made a choice. They decided that the “bad” voters in France were unreasonable people too stupid to see the beauties of a society open to people who often who do not want to assimilate, who want you to assimilate to them, and who threaten to kill you if you do not. The elite took the side against their own old and poor because those people did not want to vote for them any longer. They also made a choice not to fight Islamism because Muslims vote collectively for this global elite.
… http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8489/france-the-coming-civil-war
Upon Wilders’s arrival in New York, a little-known think tank called the Gatestone Institute rolled out the red carpet for him. On April 30, before a select crowd that according to Gatestone’s website had paid $10,000 a head, he held forth on the persecution he had endured during his recent trial for incitement to hatred and discrimination. “This charade that happened in the Netherlands for the last few years could not have happened in your great country,” Wilders said in his speech. Then he cut to the heart of his appeal: “Islam is primarily a dangerous ideology rather than a religion. This is the truth. This violent ideology wants to impose Islamic Sharia law on the whole world, including us—the Kafirs, the non-Muslims…. Islam is the largest threat to freedom which the world is currently facing.”
No, instead, the French president reaffirms his determination for military actions abroad: “We are going to reinforce our actions in Syria and Iraq,” the president said after the Nice attack.
Where have we seen this movie before?
Spain at her height could do anything. She could exhaust her treasury and forget the poor, her bankrupts, her devalued currency, her incompetent economy, her overvalued currency, her defict spending, her negative trade balance, as long as she could keep herself at the head of the mission agaist the infidel, the Islamic threat and the Protestant threat. But eventually reality caught up and imposed the limits that imperial folly had so easily hurdled over….
Spain…joined military and economic force to an obsessive belief in their own moral justification… [I]n the case of Spain…the nation overextended its power, postponed solving internal problems, and sacrificed generations. And even when the enemy ceased to be menacing, the desire to use power persisted, inebriatin, addictive.
On October 27, 2005, two French youths of Malian and Tunisian descent were electrocuted as they fled the police in the Parisian suburb of Clichy-sous-Bois. Their deaths sparked nearly three weeks of rioting in 274 towns throughout the Paris region, France, and beyond (see maps, pictures, and graphs here.)
The rioters, mostly unemployed teenagers from destitute suburban housing projects (the cités HLM) caused over €200 million in damage as they torched nearly 9000 cars and dozens of buildings, daycare centers, and schools. The French police arrested close to 2900 rioters; 126 police and firefighters were injured, and there was one fatality – a bystander who died after being struck by a hooded youth.
The French government’s response, if not swift, was predictable. Then Interior Minister Nicolas Sarkozy declared a “zero tolerance” policy towards urban violence. A year later, when civil unrest again flared up in the same suburbs – on October 1, 2006 in Les Mureaux, Yvelines, again the result of an incident with the police – Sarkozy returned to the his “law and order” discourse.
The government’s response in November 2005 and since was amplified by a wide range of commentary that attempted to link the rioting to illegal immigration, Muslim separatism, and polygamous practices.
In fact, while most of the rioters were second generation immigrant youths, the underlying issues were far more complex, involving social and economic exclusion, racial discrimination, and most importantly the capacity of the French Republic to respond to these challenges while maintaining its distinctive model of and formal commitment to the social integration of individuals, no matter what their color or creed.
Shortly after the rioting had died down, after the state of emergency was lifted in January 2006, another set of protests broke out, this time in central Paris and other French cities, and now made up largely of white youths. The unrest was in response to a law – the First Employment Contract – that was perceived to compromise job security, lower wages, and the rights of French workers.
Millions of people demonstrated in the streets, including two mass mobilizations of March 7th and 19th. But there was also extensive and violent rioting by youths, strikes and occupations of French universities, and levels of violence that at moments recalled the suburban unrest several months earlier. As a result of this public pressure, the government revoked its youth employment law.
Unlike its response to the youth and labor protests in spring 2006, the government has failed to take significant action to address the ever growing crisis of social exclusion and racism affecting the French suburbs. No parliamentary commission has been convoked to understand the riots, and no major governmental policies have been proposed in response to the social problems revealed by the riots. These web essays help us to understand not only the social issues underlying the civil unrest in the suburbs in November 2005, but also the inaction of the government since.
From the article:
…
Globalist Obama: Terrorists, Racist Cops Are ‘Chronic Impulses’ to Be Defeated by Global Elites
…
Globalist elite cooperation can defeat the “chronic violence” that is caused by real jihadism in France and supposed racism in police forces, President Barack Obama told a roomful of foreign ambassadors July 15.
… http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/15/obama-globalist-chronic-problem/
“If you watch them all, which is a fun thing to do, you’ll see a few actual policy positions; he’s against the Common Core educational standards, and he would use his first day in office to reverse Obama’s executive orders on guns and immigration. But mostly you’ll see macho promises and saccharine platitudes announced with telegenic certitude.”
“Trump is more of a work in progress, a policy Rorschach test. His vagueness and inconsistency allow voters to fill in his policy blanks, while he stands for unobjectionable things like greatness and strength and winning.”
I’ve been thinking a bit more about Roland Fryer’s working paper on police use of force….
The analysis in the paper is based on a comparison between the two pools. The arrest pool is 58% black while the shooting pool is 52% black, which is the basis for Fryer’s claim that blacks are less likely to be shot by whites in the raw data. He understands, of course, that there may be differences in behavioral and contextual factors that make the black subset of the arrest pool different from the white, and attempts to correct for this using regression analysis. He reports that doing so “does not significantly alter the raw racial differences.”….
What Fryer’s paper suggests (if one takes the incident categorization by police at face value) is that at least in Houston, those who would assault or attempt to kill a public safety officer are treated in much the same way, regardless of race.
But think of the cases that animate the protest movement, for instance the list of eleven compiled here… [I]t doesn’t appear to me that these interactions would have made it past Fryer’s arrest filter had they been handled more professionally.
The point is this: if there is little or no racial bias in the way police handle genuinely dangerous suspects, but there is bias that leads some mundane interactions to turn potentially deadly, then the kind of analysis conducted by Fryer would not be helpful in detecting it. Which in turn means that the breathless manner in which the paper was initially reported was really quite irresponsible.
Here are a couple of other studies on whether police treat blacks worse. Folks who frequent this forum will probably find the use of the word “Science” in the title of the first study interesting:
“Police Use of Nonfatal Force” attempts to address the concerns that Sethi raises, but still fails to zero in on the cause as to why more blacks report an experience of police force than whites do. “The researchers cautioned against overgeneralizing their results ‘because we do not know very much about what residents [or the police] did during the interactions that turned forceful’.”
A Bureau of Justice Statistics Police-Public Contact Survey similarly found less than 2% of respondents said they experienced, during their most recent police encounter, either threat or use of nonfatal force by police. Importantly, the BOJ study was based on interviews with citizens instead of police department reports.
“That’s the big takeaway that we wanted from our report — it’s is a rare occurrence,” said Shelley S. Hyland, a statistician for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. “It’s hard for people to understand that when there’s a lot of attention on severe incidents of force that happen.”
Overall, Hyland and her team found 44 million Americans reported having one or more face-to-face contacts with police between the years 2002 and 2011.
During street stops, 14% of blacks and 6.9% of whites recalled an experience of force, the BOJ statisticians discovered….
People who had multiple contacts with the police were more likely to report an experience of force, the researchers found….
Nearly three-fourths of those who said police used force described it as “excessive.” As described by respondents, use of force included shouting, cursing, pushing or grabbing, hitting or kicking, pepper spray, Taser or pointing a gun.
“Overall, the statistics aren’t terribly different,” said Hyland. She added that since the BOJS survey is based on in-person interviews, it captures the victim’s perspective and includes lesser forms of force, such as verbal threats.
From the article:
…
BATON ROUGE – Police have closed streets between Baton Rouge Police Headquarters and I-12 where law enforcement officers have been shot.
Sources say two Baton Rouge Police officers and one East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office deputy are dead following the shooting. Another officer was critically injured. EBRSO confirmed multiple officers from both BRPD and EBRSO sustained injuries in the shooting and were taken to area hospitals. There is no word yet on the extent of all of the injuries.
… http://www.wbrz.com/news/3-officers-dead-after-shooting-near-brpd-hq
At some point, we in the West are going to have to learn that if we intervene militarily in Mali or Iraq or Libya or Syria or interfere in Turkey, or Egypt, or the Gulf, or the Maghreb – then we will not be safe ‘at home’….
Everyone who dares to point this out…is immediately cast out of society as a “friend of terrorists”. There is, in fact, a whole vocabulary of abuse for anyone who says that there are reasons for these acts of mass murder which we need to know, however crazed they are. At present, the Isis/Western hate mail to each other is almost identical with King Lear: “I will do such things…what they are, yet I know not, but they shall be the terrors of the earth…”
In the past, we could go on foreign adventures in Korea or Vietnam without worrying that North Koreans would blow up the London Underground or that the Vietcong would attack New York with airliners. Not anymore. Foreign adventures come at a terrifying cost. Claiming they do not – or pompously declaring that “their” bombs in London or Paris have nothing to do with “our” bombs in Iraq – is dishonest.
At some point in history – though how far into the future, when we will have cut away the foundations of our own freedoms with our own new laws – we will probably have to re-think our relationship with the Middle East and with history. Yes, and with religion….
But the last phone-video I saw which had any parallel of scale with Nice was a horrifying piece of footage during the Egyptian revolution of 2011 when an Egyptian army trucks was driven at speed – and swerving wildly – into a crowd of peaceful protestors. Why didn’t we remember that after Nice? Because the killers were never caught? Because no-one remembers yesterday’s news? Or because the victims were Arabs involved in a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know – by and large — nothing.
The three-year-old son of a police officer died after accidentally shooting and killing himself, police say.
[…]
The boy apparently found a gun and shot himself on Thursday, according to The Denver Channel. It’s unclear if the gun used was a department issued weapon.
How come the “couldn’t care less” crowd is left out when they’re the largest group?
All Adults – 35% don’t give a damn about BLM
Whites – 32% don’t give a damn about BLM
Blacks – 23% don’t give a damn about BLM
Hispanics – 56% don’t give a damn about BLM
Interesting that Hispanics have the largest amount of apathy for black lives matter movement, innit? Hispanics had nothing to do with slavery in the US and thus don’t succumb to white guilt. Sole reason. So they’re the unbiased observers in this.
I’m born and raised a Yankee, by the way. I don’t feel any guilt either. The rest of y’all should try it on for size. Guilt is like a bag of bricks. Just set it down.
This U.S. Presidential election may take on the order of (some have said) $5 billion. This has doubled since 2012. Those in a position to offer a higher level of funding obviously attract a greater level of attention. Campaign reform should be inclusive of lobbying reform IMO. We restrict levels of ‘gifts’ to all sorts of governmental employees. Why not the highest levels?
Corporations are made up of individuals. The individuals voices should be heard independently and not under the umbrella of any entity with which one may not fully agree.
I didn’t ask you why other people thought an amendment “overturning” Citizens United was an act for the little guy, I asked you. Ironic though that the first link you deferred your voice to had this to say:
“We have folks that are essentially using million-dollar megaphones to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,” says Adam Lioz, a senior adviser at the liberal policy group Demos.”
Of course, when I gave you the opportunity to speak to me in your own voice, you decided it was better to let presumably better funded corporations than yourself speak for you.
What I would like to know is why you think a constitutional amendment can “overturn” a Supreme Court decision, and do you think that Court has the power of judicial review over such an amendment? How would this amendment be worded and how would you have this amendment still honor the First Amendment and wouldn’t it have to?
In this thread you’ve made the point that others are fickle when it comes to which rights enumerated in the Constitution that they choose to acknowledge, surely you recognize the the First Amendments prohibition of Congress to “make law” an act that would deny or disparage speech is widely applicable in terms of whom or what can challenge unconstitutional statutes. How do you imagine this amendment will be worded in order to pass constitutional muster?
From the wiki: “The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.”
Corporations/Unions have taken over with dollars. And I fear we’ve become lazy as we let ‘them’ do the heavy lifting and staying largely uninvolved. Those entities don’t have the same responsibilities as individuals and shouldn’t receive the same kinds of protections, IMO. A person of influence in an organization can pressure individuals to form a ‘consensus’ for that which otherwise might not have been agreed.
A constitutional amendment doesn’t have to pass “constitutional muster” with regard to content. It modifies the underlying document. Duh. You’re an imbecile too Jean Clod.
“A constitutional amendment doesn’t have to pass “constitutional muster” with regard to content. It modifies the underlying document. Duh. You’re an imbecile too Jean Clod.”
Little Doofus Spittle brags about his complete and utter ignorance once again. One only need to look at Brushaber v. Union Pacific and Stanton v. Baltic Mining to know that in both those cases, where the 16th Amendment was challenged as unconstitutional, that the SCOTUS certainly thought both parties had legal standing to sue. Don’t you even bother to double check your nonsense before you go spouting it off, Little Doofus?
Forget about the procedural requirements imposed by Article V of the Constitution, according to Little Doofus the First Amendment can be wholly repealed and replaced with a new amendment, and the republic itself can be amended to finally become the democracy so many pine over without any legal challenges what-so-ever, because…well, because the Constitution is public and if people want to challenge unconstitutional amendments they need permission from the public to do so, don’t ya know?
The law, however, is far more nuanced than Little Doofus could ever conceive. On the one hand, the overarching rule is that the where the text of the constitution is clear then the text controls the Supreme Court, but what if Congress passes an Amendment infringing upon the rights of speech when it involves political contributions. This amendment belongs on the other hand, because of the very likely conflict between the First Amendment and the Unicorn Amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. Does Congress have the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied them this power?
The law is simple and should be, but leave it to the simpleton’s like Little Doofus to do what they can to complicate law and make damn sure its all so confusing. The law is not confusing, Little Doofus, its only you who is confused. If constitutional amendments cannot be challenged as unconstitutional then why does the SCOTUS keep hearing challenges? Why did they grant Leser v Garnett ceratori? Why did they hear both Brushaber and Stanton’s challenges? If the challenges couldn’t have the effect of striking down the amendment, what was the point in deciding on those cases? I know, really tough questions, but sooner or later you’re going to have to man up and finally demonstrate some of this so called “intelligence” you keep claiming, Little Doofus
What kind of mental midget are you? Did you even bother to read the articles you linked? George Wright is in agreement with me, clown boy, not you!
“The Article will conclude that implied substantive limitations on constitutional amendments exist even absent any particular “essence” or overriding spirit that informs the whole constitution. Neither does this theory of implied substantive limits depend upon excessive devotion to the views of the framers or upon any claim that constitutional interpreters must answer to a ‘higher’ or natural law. Rather, implied limits on the substance of constitutional amendments flow from the inescapable logic of any reasonable view of the basic purposes underlying the Constitution, and from the requirement that a constitution exist as a minimally unified, coherent, functioning document”
I expected you to provide law review articles to make your case, but I sure didn’t expect you to supply law review articles that make my case. As little regard I have for you and your dumbed down generation I did not think you would be so spectacularly foolish. Apparently, Little Doofus, despite your obvious lack of intelligence, I had held you in higher regard than you actually deserve. Poseur.
The same goes for the Quora link you provided, which is not really the best source of authority, but it is you providing it after all, so I’ll allow it. You quite clearly did not bother to read past Cliff Gilley’s response because your a poseur. I also find it hysterical that of all the declared “constitutional” students or experts in Quora, not one of them have any idea about Brushaber v Pacific Union, Stanton v Baltic Mining or Lesser v. Garnett. You and your dumbed down generation, expecting to be treated like geniuses because you passed dumbed down tests. Poseur.
I haven’t looked at the other two, but my best understanding of Brushaber v Pacific Union is that in no way did it include any challenge to the “constitutionality” of the 16th Amendment. It did challenge whether the “Revenue Act of 1913” was Constitutional.
A money quote (from Wiki linked above):
In Brushaber, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to “taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”
It would appear to have been a somewhat nit-picking semantic argument (,albeit one with great financial implications), but not a challenge to the Constitutionality of an Amendment.
“I haven’t looked at the other two, but my best understanding of Brushaber v Pacific Union is that in no way did it include any challenge to the “constitutionality” of the 16th Amendment. It did challenge whether the “Revenue Act of 1913” was Constitutional.”
AK;
The best of your understanding would have been even better still had you taken the time to read the actual case law:
“As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.
The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.”
~Brushaber v Pacific Union~
Here’s a little more:
“Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class. This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”
~Brushaber v Pacific Union~
“The bill contained many averments on the following subjects, which may be divided into two generic classes: (A) Those concerning the operation of the law in question upon individuals generally and upon other than mining corporations…And (B) those dealing with the practical results on the company of the operation of the tax in question, evidently alleged for the purpose of sustaining the charge which the bill made that the tax levied was not what was deemed to be the peculiar direct tax which the 16th Amendment exceptionally authorized to be levied without apportionment, and of the resulting repugnancy of the tax to the Constitution as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, levied without conforming to the regulation of apportionment generally required by the Constitution as to such taxation.”
~Stanton v Baltic Mining~
“The only ground of disqualification alleged was that the applicants for registration were women, whereas the Constitution of Maryland limits the suffrage to men. Ratification of the proposed amendment to the federal [258 U.S. 130, 136] Constitution, now known as the Nineteenth, 41 Stat. 362, had been proclaimed on August 26, 1920, 41 Stat. 1823, pursuant to Revised Statutes , 205 (Comp. St. 303). The Legislature of Maryland had refused to ratify it. The petitioners contended, on several grounds, that the amendment had not become part of the federal Constitution.”
~Leser v Garnett~
Wikipedia is fine as a beginning step, but not nearly thorough enough to base claims such as “is that in no way did it include any challenge to the “constitutionality” of the 16th Amendment.” Going straight to the horses mouth is best, in terms of best understanding.
I see no reason to go to the case law, beyond the excerpts you’ve provided, which seem to me to provide no proof, or even evidence, whatsoever of any challenge to the Constitutionality of an amendment due to “conflicts” with the remainder of the Constitution.
The first two appear to be challenges to how the change to the Constitution is to be understood, the third as to whether the ratification had proceeded correctly, and thus whether the amendment had actually become part of the Constitution.
To me, it would appear you have provided no “case law” in support of your original claim:
[… W]hat if Congress passes an Amendment infringing upon the rights of speech when it involves political contributions. This amendment belongs on the other hand, because of the very likely conflict between the First Amendment and the Unicorn Amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. Does Congress have the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied them this power?
Your final question builds in a non-fact: if Congress “passes an Amendment” that doesn’t make it part of the Constitution. Congress does not “have the authority to” make any change to the Constitution.
And nobody talking about such an amendment is suggesting that it does. Except, perhaps, you.
Of course you don’t. You didn’t when you relied upon Wikipedia to tell you what was ruled in Brushaber and sadly you keep insisting there is no need to actually read the case law. Frankly, you’ve failed to demonstrate that you have even bothered to read the Wikipedia article in its entirety. It appears this way because of how you quoted Wikipedia’s page on Brushaber – a quote you amusingly call the “money quote”:
“A money quote (from Wiki linked above):
“In Brushaber, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to “taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”
However, if you continue reading that same Wikipedia page you will find this:
“The Court in Brushaber noted that income taxes inherently belonged in the “category” of indirect tax (or excise). The court stated that incomes taxes are indirect excise taxes by reinforcing the Pollock decision”
There is a clear contradiction between the two phrases. Further, Wiki goes on to state:
“Nothing in the Sixteenth Amendment or in Brushaber (and the other cases interpreting the tax provisions of the U.S. Constitution) changes the general rule that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the states by population.”
Once again another claim contradicts the first. Brushaber never held that the 16th Amendment “eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to ‘taxes on income, from whatever source derived’. And it doesn’t take a legal scholar to understand that if income taxes “inherently” belong in the category of indirect taxes then there is no rule of apportionment to eliminate. That’s just basic logic….well, and a rudimentary understanding of constitutional taxation and procedures.
What The Supreme Court held in Brushaber is that the Sixteenth Amendment did, in light of Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., was to clarify that Congress has the power to tax income indirectly, including taxes on rent from property. This is the meaning of “whatever source derived”. The Sixteenth Amendment further clarifies that when Congress levies a tax on income without apportionment or any regard for a census of enumeration that this is because they are taxing income indirectly.
I will address your more recent arguments, despite your refusal to actually read the case law in question in another post, but it is important to point out that Boris Bittiker’s interpretation of Brushaber is erroneous. It is obvious that the Wikipedia page is relying heavily upon Bittiker’s interpretation, but they have also pointed out that the SCOTUS made the point that the 16th Amendment placed income tax in the category of indirect taxation where it inherently belongs.
” Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.”
Chief Justice White had made the point earlier that:
“Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent.”
Justice White recognizes that by taking the view that a tax on rents was a direct tax on property (as the majority did in Pollock) meant also recognizing that under this view it was the income being taxed directly and the property only taxed indirectly. Without chastising or criticizing the principle held in Pollock – something the 16th Amendment also declines to do – Justice White is pointing out the paradoxical nature of viewing an income tax as a direct tax on property, even if it involved rent derived from property.
The Supreme Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment clarified that Congress has the authority to keep income taxation within the category of indirect taxation and as such has no obligation to the rule of apportionment, only the rule of uniformity. Your willingness to let Wikipedia tell you what to think has hurt your ability to understand this, even if Wikipedia did offer you clues they were feeding you data porn…which is what made your “money quote” so amusing.
I will address your more recent arguments in another post.
“…beyond the excerpts you’ve provided, which seem to me to provide no proof, or even evidence, whatsoever of any challenge to the Constitutionality of an amendment due to “conflicts” with the remainder of the Constitution.”
Let’s break it down very simply.
““As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.”
Perhaps, if you failed to read past this sentence, it might explain why you claim:
“The first two appear to be challenges to how the change to the Constitution is to be understood.”
However, Justice White’s next sentence is:
“The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them.”
You do know what “intermingled” means, don’t you? Why is it difficult to classify them? Justice White explains with his next sentence:
“We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.”
For your clarification, Justice White has just explained that it is difficult to classify the intermingled contentions because of the plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment, not because of anything inherent in the 16th Amendment or the subsequent revenue bill in question, but because of the plaintiff’s view, of the 16th Amendment, of which White chooses to frame the appellant’s view with language such as “a hitherto unknown power of taxation” and “although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.”
By framing the contention as such, Justice White has laid out why it is the SCOTUS actually refers to the 16th Amendment 36 or 37 times and why it is they demonstrate the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment. So, when Justice White holds:
“But it clearly results that the proposition (the plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment) and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it (challenges to the revenue bill), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”
Bruhsaber v Union Pacific – (parenthetical statements added).
I realize what I just quoted is something I had not earlier quoted but until now I had no reason to believe you would simply refuse to read the case law in question and attempt to analyze what was held based upon excerpts.
“…the third as to whether the ratification had proceeded correctly, and thus whether the amendment had actually become part of the Constitution.”
Leser v Garnett actually addresses both procedural challenges made to the 19th Amendment and substantive challenges.
“The only ground of disqualification alleged was that the applicants for registration were women, whereas the Constitution of Maryland limits the suffrage to men.”
~Leser v Garnnett~
This contention (as erroneous as it may have been) is a states rights issue, which is a substantive issue not a procedural issue imposed by Article V. As to Stanton v Baltic Mining, which was the second of the “first two” you speak of here is more excerpts for you:
“And (B) those dealing with the practical results on the company of the operation of the tax in question, evidently alleged for the purpose of sustaining the charge which the bill made that the tax levied was not what was deemed to be the peculiar direct tax which the 16th Amendment exceptionally authorized to be levied without apportionment, and of the resulting repugnancy of the tax to the Constitution as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, levied without conforming to the regulation of apportionment generally required by the Constitution as to such taxation.”
Just as the appellant’s in Brushaber had done, so to do the appellant’s in Stanton make erroneous assumptions about the meaning of the 16th Amendment, which Justice White has earlier explained were dealt with in Brushaber so there was no need to rehash them in Stanton, except to acknowledge that the contentions made about the the repugnancy of the revenue bill were based upon the appellant’s view that the 16th Amendment was, with its “peculiar direct tax” also repugnant to the constitution.
In Stanton v Baltic Mining the Chief Justice White, having a second chance to render an opinion regarding erroneous interpretations of the 16th Amendment was able to state more cogently why the appellant’s view of that amendment was mistaken:
“The contention is that as the tax here imposed is not on the net product, but in a sense somewhat equivalent to a tax on the gross product of the working of the mine by the corporation, therefore the tax is not within the purview of the 16th Amendment, and consequently it must be treated as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, and as such void for want of apportionment. But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. Mark, of course, in saying this we are not here considering a tax not within the provisions of the 16th Amendment, that is, one in which the regulation of apportionment or the rule of uniformity is wholly negligible because the tax is one entirely beyond the scope of the taxing power of Congress, and where consequently sequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists. In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax for the purpose of taking the income tax out of the class of indirect, to which it generically belongs, and putting it in the class of direct, to which it would not otherwise belong, in order to subject it to the regulation of apportionment.”
Returning to Brushaber:
“So far as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is relied upon (a contention made by appellant), it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring, upon the one hand, a taxing power, and taking the same power away, on the other, by the limitations of the due process clause.”
~Brushaber v. Union Pacific (parenthetical statement added)~
The appellant in Brushaber was necessarily challenging the validity of the 16th Amendment with this contention, that the 16th conflicts with the 5th, and again, this is an argument of substantive limitations on constitutional amendments and that the Supreme Court deigned to hear these arguments it is easily inferred from that the Supreme Court does recognize a power to place constitutional amendments under judicial review. That becomes much clearer in light of Leser v Garnnett.
Your intellectual laziness is problematic, AK. If you don’t want to read the case law you don’t have to, but you are making assumptions not based on evidence, unless you want to count the data porn site Wikipedia as “evidence”, but I reject that, and am only willing to recommend that site as a place to begin one’s research, not become the source of knowledge.
We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.
For your clarification, Justice White has just explained that it is difficult to classify the intermingled contentions because of the plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment, […]
[…]
But it clearly results that the proposition (the plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment) and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it (challenges to the revenue bill), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is,
Well, I read this as saying that the “plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment” is wrong because it “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another”, rather than that the plaintiff was actually saying the 16th Amendment was invalid because it conflicted with another provision of the Constitution.
Your intellectual laziness is problematic, AK.
I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to spend on your arguments, considering how blithely you leave out critical steps in the amendment process (see my comment below), thus giving an incorrect impression in your statement.
I suspect I would just be wasting my time digging through your semantic games.
The petitioners contended, on several grounds, that the amendment had not become part of the federal Constitution. The trial court overruled the contentions and dismissed the petition. Its judgment was affirmed by the Court of Appeals of the state (Md.) 114 Atl. 840; and the case comes here on writ of error. That writ must be dismissed; but the petition for a writ of certiorari, also duly filed, is granted. The laws of Maryland authorize such a suit by a qualified voter against the board of registry. Whether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the federal Constitution is the question presented for decision. [my bold]
[…]
The first contention is that the power of amendment conferred by the federal Constitution and sought to be exercise does not extend to this amendment because of its character. The argument is that so great an addition to the electorate, if made without the state’s consent, destroys its autonomy as a political body. This amendment is in character and phraseology precisely similar to the Fifteenth. For each the same method of adoption was pursued. One cannot be valid and the other invalid. That the Fifteenth is valid, although rejected by six states, including Maryland, has been recognized and acted on for half a century. See […]. The suggestion that the Fifteenth was incorporated in the Constitution, not in accordance with law, but practically as a war measure which has been validated by acquiescence, cannot be entertained.
OK, there has been a challenge, in the original case, on the basis of substance, but it would seem to me that it was addressed and dismissed simply because it was there, not because it was covered under the writ of certiorari, which regarded “[w]hether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the federal Constitution”.
I don’t see this as recognizing any right of judicial review of the substance of any Constitutional Amendment (beyond the “equal suffrage in the Senate” clause of Article V). The challenge “cannot be entertained.”
The remaining contentions involve the actual process of ratification, not the substance.
I find your arguments tiresome and time-wasting, without making what I consider a worthwhile case that the SCOTUS has recognized a right to challenge Constitutional Amendments on their substance, beyond the single “equal suffrage in the Senate” exclusion.
If you’re going to make a point, why not make it, rather than quoting large sections of irrelevant material, then criticizing me for not going to the original case law for what matters.
“Your final question builds in a non-fact: if Congress “passes an Amendment” that doesn’t make it part of the Constitution. Congress does not “have the authority to” make any change to the Constitution.
I have read this last argument of yours over several times, as well as what came before it but I still cannot makes heads or tails with what you’re saying here. Are you arguing that I am arguing that “if Congress ‘passes an Amendment” that doesn’t make it part of the Constitution, and are you arguing that I have argued that “Congress does not ‘have the authority to’ make any change to the Constitution”? If this is what you are arguing it is a strawman.
My confusion over what you meant by all that stems from what you quoted of what I actually did say:
“[… W]hat if Congress passes an Amendment infringing upon the rights of speech when it involves political contributions. This amendment belongs on the other hand, because of the very likely conflict between the First Amendment and the Unicorn Amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. Does Congress have the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied them this power?”
When I ask if Congress has the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied this power, I am not implying that Congress doesn’t have the power to change the constitution, I am implying that Congress’ power is subject to the a.) the people, and b.) the Constitution itself through substantive limitations.
There is no express language, nor even any language where one might be able to infer that Congress’ ability to make amendments to the constitution necessarily placed a burden on the people, relieving them of their right to turn to the courts for judicial review in regards to those amendments, and neither you, nor your colleague Whoseya McCallhim have even attempted to explain why it is the people have no legal standing to challenge a constitutional amendment based upon substantive limitations. Indeed, your colleague linked to a law review article by George Wright, making my case about substantive limits, but, of course, you don’t need to read that either, do you?
I have read this last argument of yours over several times, as well as what came before it but I still cannot makes heads or tails with what you’re saying here.
Well, I was saying one thing, and suggesting another, based on what seemed like (perhaps) vagueness in your language.
Congress has no authority to make any changes to the Constitution.
Period, end of sentence.
The authority to make changes to the Constitution lies in the states, who ratify, or not, such amendments.
Congress can pass any “amendment” they want, and it’s just a piece of paper until the requisite number of states have ratified it and that ratification been properly certified (by the Attorney General, IIRC).
I learned this stuff in 7th grade, private school, so I can’t say for sure whether it was properly taught in the “social studies” class I had in High School or not. I know our educational system has deteriorated substantially since I was in high school (late ’60’s), I’m not surprised many people don’t understand it.
I was suggesting that perhaps you didn’t understand this, the alternative being that you were just leaving out that critical step for purposes of brevity.
Indeed, your colleague linked to a law review article by George Wright, making my case about substantive limits, but, of course, you don’t need to read that either, do you?
He’s not my colleague, I disagree with him on many subjects. I do happen to agree with him that your thoughts are, at best, poorly thought out and/or expressed.
He certainly could be right that you’re a blithering idi0t.
And yes, I did read that article, well part of it. It makes the point that there is just one substantive limitation on amendments: “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
As for the theories about amendments that impact the Constitution’s standing qua constitution, they’re interesting, but the issue of judicial review is probably moot. My guess is that they’d be settled by war, same as last time.
On the one hand, the overarching rule is that the where the text of the constitution is clear then the text controls the Supreme Court, but what if Congress passes an Amendment infringing upon the rights of speech when it involves political contributions. This amendment belongs on the other hand, because of the very likely conflict between the First Amendment and the Unicorn Amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. Does Congress have the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied them this power?
Let’s assume that “Congress” in this case refers to the entire system of Congress proposing, and the States ratifying (by 3/4 vote).
The clear language of Article V says that they do. They have the authority to make any changes except “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” The 17th Amendment is an example of a change that directly supercedes the prior Constitutional article. The only case law I could find involved squabbles over the meaning of the wording of the amendment, no challenge to its right of supersession.
It might be worded, for instance, as saying that the “freedom of the press” shall not be held to extend to the provision of large amounts of money, or equivalent, for the purpose of distributing material intended to influence the decisions of voters, where they do not take some initiative to acquire it. Along with some definition of “large” that would allow small expenditures, within the typical means of a good fraction of the populace.
Thus, paying for a blog, or other website, where you can express your views would be covered under “freedom of the press”, as well as “freedom of speech”, while large expenditures for advertising or leafleting, for the purpose of influencing voting decisions would be subject to legislative control.
“Well, I read this as saying that the “plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment” is wrong because it “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another”, rather than that the plaintiff was actually saying the 16th Amendment was invalid because it conflicted with another provision of the Constitution.”
AK;
Yes, that is my reading too. This further clarifies what Chief Justice White meant by:
“As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.
The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them.”
It was the Supreme Court that recognized that the contentions the appellant made necessarily included an attack on the 16th Amendment itself. But your explanation of the SCOTUS declaring the appellant wrong about the Amendment also implicitly means that had the appellant been right then this “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another” and bring into question the validity of the 16th Amendment.
“I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to spend on your arguments…”
When I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to spend on an argument, what I don’t do is take that argument up until I am willing to make the needed time, because…well, intellectual laziness is problematic to say the least.
“I suspect I would just be wasting my time digging through your semantic games.”
Maybe. You’re most assuredly wasting your time relying on deflections like “semantic games”, particularly on a debate about law, constitutional text and case law where each and every word should be given significance.
“Let me address the case law WRT Leser v Garnnett…OK, there has been a challenge, in the original case, on the basis of substance…”
See what happens when you actually read the case law in question, instead of relying on other people to tell you what to think?
“but it would seem to me that it was addressed and dismissed simply because it was there, not because it was covered under the writ of certiorari, which regarded “[w]hether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the federal Constitution”.
I’m not clear what you mean by this, but when the Supreme Court addresses an argument because “it is there”, and particularly what “is there” is a substantive issue over the 19th Amendment, this brings into question whether the 19th Amendment “has become a part of the Constitution.”
Further, it appears as if you don’t know what certiorari means, nor do you seem to understand the difference between a writ of error and a a writ of certiorari, nor do you even appear to understand that appellants had also filed a writ of error which was dismissed by the SCOTUS but the writ of certiorari granted. The writ of certiorari simply means at least four of the Justices sitting on the bench thought the petitioners case merited review, and in granting certiorari the SCOTUS directs the lower court in question to send the record of proceedings for review, and that is why the substantive issue “was there”.
“I don’t see this as recognizing any right of judicial review of the substance of any Constitutional Amendment (beyond the “equal suffrage in the Senate” clause of Article V). The challenge “cannot be entertained.”
Your use of quotation marks around the phrase “cannot be entertained” is an outright deception intended to make it appear as if the SCOTUS has argued that substantive challenges to constitutional amendments cannot be entertained, but while the SCOTUS, in Leser v. Garnnett, did use that phrase, and you just quoted it yourself, here is the context to that phrase one more time:
“The suggestion that the Fifteenth was incorporated in the Constitution, not in accordance with law, but practically as a war measure which has been validated by acquiescence, cannot be entertained.”
The Supreme Court has not held that substantive challenges to constitutional amendments “cannot be entertained”, and your awkward attempt at deception gives evidence that you know this.
“I find your arguments tiresome and time-wasting…”
Again, when I find arguments tiresome and time-wasting I just don’t take them up, but that’s just me.
“If you’re going to make a point, why not make it, rather than quoting large sections of irrelevant material, then criticizing me for not going to the original case law for what matters.”
I, of course, quoted from large sections of relevant case law because of your foolish attempt to speak authoritatively about case law you clearly had not read, whether you can grasp the point or not is on you, not me.
“Well, I was saying one thing, and suggesting another, based on what seemed like (perhaps) vagueness in your language.”
AK,
It is pretty funny that you excuse your own vagueness because you perceive a vagueness in my language. You were saying one thing, and suggesting another, were you?
“Congress has no authority to make any changes to the Constitution.
Period, end of sentence.
The authority to make changes to the Constitution lies in the states, who ratify, or not, such amendments.”
Thank you for the clarification. This is not an argument I care to take up as I find it to be a silly quibble of process, nothing more.
It kind of follows that people who spell out the punctuation mark “period” would then explain what that means with “end of sentence”. Thanks for that clarification from the department of redundancy department as well.
“I learned this stuff in 7th grade, private school, so I can’t say for sure whether it was properly taught in the “social studies” class I had in High School or not. I know our educational system has deteriorated substantially since I was in high school (late ’60’s), I’m not surprised many people don’t understand it.”
Don’t kid yourself, education had already deteriorated substantially by the late ’60’s, which probably explains much of your confusion.
“I was suggesting that perhaps you didn’t understand this, the alternative being that you were just leaving out that critical step for purposes of brevity.”
I actually thought that when I argued:
“Forget about the procedural requirements imposed by Article V of the Constitution…”
I had made fairly clear that a.) there are procedural challenges that can be made to a constitutional amendment, and b.) that procedural challenges were not my concern and what followed that sentence was an argument that made clear I was concerned about substantive issues. To be clear, I was not “saying one thing and suggesting another”, but instead was saying I was not interested in making procedural arguments about an amendment that doesn’t even exist.
“He’s not my colleague, I disagree with him on many subjects. I do happen to agree with him that your thoughts are, at best, poorly thought out and/or expressed.”
Who do you mean? Oh! Do you mean Whoseya McCallhim? In terms of this argument – can an amendment be challenged as unconstitutional – there is my argument that yes, such challenges can be made and then there is the opposing argument being made by you and your colleague Whoseya McCallhim.
“He certainly could be right that you’re a blithering idi0t.”
We can play that game if you want, before we do, I’ll ask you point blank, do you want to play that game?
“And yes, I did read that article, well part of it. It makes the point that there is just one substantive limitation on amendments: “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
It does not appear as if you read much at all of George Wright’s Article based upon your assessment of it. Perhaps you’ve confused that with some other article. Here is the same link your colleague provided:
Wright’s article is a great read, not because he makes my argument, but because he bends over backwards to offer a critical analysis of that argument…meaning he lends far more credence to the arguments you and your colleague are making than I am willing to do.
The reason I am unwilling to do that is because I am the advocate for the right of the people to seek a redress of grievances and whatever antithesis need be offered to my thesis should be done by the opposing advocate(s). This is how the legal system works, where litigants present a thesis and antithesis heard by a judge who offers up a resolution. Granted, here in this thread we are in the kangaroo court of public opinion where each person reading yours and my arguments must reach their own conclusions.
“As for the theories about amendments that impact the Constitution’s standing qua constitution, they’re interesting, but the issue of judicial review is probably moot. My guess is that they’d be settled by war, same as last time.”
The issue of judicial review is probably not moot, and your resignation that only war can settle this issue should be reason enough to reconsider your stance…unless you pine for war, I guess. Your declaration that judicial review of constitutional amendments is “probably moot” is an unearned declaration, and you have miserably failed to demonstrate why it would be “probably moot”. You certainly haven’t pointed to anything the SCOTUS has said on the matter – outside your sloppy deceptions – only to what the SCOTUS has not said.
“Which clearly demonstrates that your blather isn’t worth wasting any more time on.”
Okay then, let’s play that game.
All you insufferable snobs who’ve attended the esteemed University of Pot looking down your noses at all those poor, poor pitiful slobs who’ve attended the State College of Kettle are so secure in your belief that your education is superior to those around you, just like any blithering id1ot you’ve convinced yourself you don’t actually have to learn anything more. This is why you thought you could take up this argument without any knowledge what-so-ever in regards to the case law you decided to take up.
I know, I know; “But, but, but…Wikipedia!” Yes, yes, you and your “money quote”, but I’ve actually witnessed you yourself make this claim:
“Well, I read this as saying that the “plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment” is wrong because it “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another”, rather than that the plaintiff was actually saying the 16th Amendment was invalid because it conflicted with another provision of the Constitution.”
Which demonstrates that you know that Wikipedia is wrong with their so called “money quote”, but still, you cannot be bothered to actually read Brushaber v. Pacific Union. You made it clear you didn’t bother to read it when you took this argument up, and you made it clear you still hadn’t read it when you doubled down and built a slap dash wall of defense to protect and defend your ignorance by claiming you didn’t need to read it all you had to do was read excerpts from it.
You’ve claimed to read the article your cohort linked (well “part of it” anyways) and then you demonstrated you hadn’t read that article…not even part of it. You’ve whined and pissed and moaned about not wanting to put the time in needed to actually make a valid argument. You’ve deflected and amusingly thought it intelligent to dismiss semantics as merely a “game” in an argument about law and the legal system.
Of course you would dismiss your opponent, who has read the case law in question, who did read the article your colleague linked, who has taken the time to study the issue, as a “blithering id1ot”. What else, after all, can you do? Well, of course, you could just do the work required to make a cogent and valid argument, but you’ve made it clear that ain’t gonna happen, so get right down to the name calling.
When you lack the mental capacity to effectively rebut sound arguments, I get it, it can be frustrating. You don’t, however, lack this capacity because of nature, AK. You lack this mental capacity because you’re lazy. So, why are you so angry? You’re so angry because deep down in that addled brain of yours a notion is coming to mind, and it has occurred to you that you’re the guy wearing the black hat. You’re the guy who is arguing against the right of the people to seek a redress of grievance by turning to the courts to challenge an amendment repugnant to the constitution.
Of course, this is often the governments position, but you don’t have to put on the black hat in order to take up the governments position. If you want to wear the white hat while arguing the governments position you better damn know well know what you’re talking about. You have openly paraded your ignorance and clung to it as if it was a velvet lapel on your navy blue blazer with the University of Pot insignia on it.
If you can’t make a valid argument and your only solution to the problem of amendments repugnant to the constitution is civil war, this is hardly evidence of wisdom, hot shot. Nobody made you put on the black hat, AK, that was your own idea.
“From the wiki: “The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.”
Danny,
Right, Citizens United was in regards to “electioneering communications” where Citizens United was up against an FEC that claimed it had the authority to ban books even if it was just one sentence in that book that expressly advocated for the victory or defeat of a candidate during that specified election cycle. The FEC also argued they could ban digital books provided on Kindle by Amazon and could prevent a union from hiring a writer to write a political book. That’s a lot of power being claimed, Danny, and in terms of the “little guy”, in this instance the little guy wasn’t the FEC, it was Citizens United.
The SCOTUS, divided as it was, correctly recognized that “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” So the big hoopla now is that…what? Upwards of $5 billion has been spent on this current election cycle and this somehow drowns out the “little guys” voice?
When the “little guy” wants the FEC to have the kind of power that Citizens United managed to successfully challenge I wonder why? Why does the little guy need the FEC to stop unions from hiring writers to write political books, and why does the little guy need the FEC to stop Amazon from providing its Kindle users with electioneering communications if this what the Kindle users want? Why does the little guy need the FEC from preventing non profit organizations from releasing a political film and advertising that release? Who is forcing the little guy to be persuaded by all of this? Is the little guy just so little he can’t even make up his own mind and is hopelessly trapped by the propaganda shown by the highest bidder? If so, how is it the FEC can really help them with that?
This should help. http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/citizens_united_how_justice_kennedy_has_paved_the_way_for_the_re.html
Specifically, the question of what kind of donation gives the appearance of corruption which is why there are direct contribution limits in the first place.
***
In Citizens United, Kennedy resolved what appeared to be an empirical question about independent spending and corruption: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
The flat statement of fact is illogical. If the court believes that the government may limit a $3,000 contribution to a candidate because of its corruptive potential, how could it not believe that the government has a similar anticorruption interest in limiting $3 million spent in an independent effort to elect that candidate? Would a federal candidate not feel much more beholden to the big spender than the more modest contributor?
***
Marquez-Greene’s 6-year-old daughter, Ana, was one of 20 children killed at Sandy Hook Elementary School on Dec. 14, 2012, in Connecticut. She has since become an outspoken proponent of stronger gun control.
“Ana, mom got pizza to these brave people. #Disarmhate #NoBillNoBreak @HouseDemocrats thank you @repjohnlewis,” Marquez-Greene tweeted around 7:45 p.m. Wednesday.
Pizza is bad for you. High in saturated fat, cholesterol, and refined glutenous wheat flour. Hate won’t clog arteries or cause type II diabetes or Crohn’s disease. I hate you enough to wish you all the pizza in the world and that feels good to say!
One thing that did make sense was that he is also in favor of banning open carry for the duration of the convention in Cleveland. That steps on some perceived rights, but it makes it easier for the police to handle situations that may develop. He might get some pushback on that request from the NRA types.
From the police perspective anyone doing open carry at any time should be considered suspicious, or at least up to no good, and they should follow them. If you don’t want police attention, don’t be carrying a gun.
“I was wrong: Trump WILL be the next president” http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/01/i-was-wrong-trump-will-be-the-next-president-commentary.html
“And that brings me to my last mistake about Trump’s chances: I underestimated how bad Hillary Clinton’s campaign would be. To be fair, I never thought Clinton was a particularly strong candidate. But at every essential task of marketing and messaging, the Clinton campaign has been surprisingly bad.”
“We all know Trump’s key slogan/promise is “Make America Great Again.” I’m still not sure what Hillary Clinton’s key slogan/promise is and I follow her campaign very closely. Is it “I’m with Her?” If so, it’s not very good in that it doesn’t seem to have anything in it for the person who isn’t “her.””
I am not her. What’s in this for me?
JCH:
“The establishment is a gift from people who were tired of the establishment. That tail you’re chasing… is yours.”
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Glenn,
Video viewed as requested. Area of agreement. Trumps ‘shooting from the hip’ is indeed a feature of his campaign. But should it be? The fact that we’re basically lazy and don’t vet our candidates well but often vote for a party or a ‘single issue’ has led us to where we are.
I guess the main surprise for me is that we’re dealing with a job candidate who’s interviewing with us and will not detail his qualifications and approaches.
Is not the first and most basic part of any job interview to address the qualifications of the candidate? If not, then I’m putting in right now for Dr. Curry’s job as a world renowned scientist. And I’ll be great and will make climate science great again.
Tony Hall, the former Democratic congressman, understood why Trump would appeal to these voters. Nobody had paid attention to them for a long time.
“Trump isn’t saying anything other than you’ve got trouble and I’m going to take care of it, you got shafted and I’m going to take care of it,” he told me. “The Democrats are not addressing their issues and haven’t been for years … Their constituency is the working people and the poor and they forgot about them for years … They want someone to sit down and have a beer with them and listen to them and address some of their issues and do everything they can to bring jobs back.”
They had a home in neither party as it now existed in greater Dayton. They were certainly not part of the Democratic Party of Welcome Dayton — the world that, the day before the Trump rally, had hosted a visit to town by Cecile Richards, the president of Planned Parenthood, stumping for Clinton. But they also weren’t part of the Republican Party that had left Montgomery County and moved to the exurbs, whether it took the form of Warren County’s ideological infighting or Boehner’s country-club complacency. They were stranded between these two poles, in the older, frayed inner suburbs of Montgomery County.
Don Phillips saw these people a lot as the campaign headed into summer, and as Dayton prepared for its moment in the sun, hosting the first presidential debate last September. They came to party headquarters at the Mandalay to pick up Trump signs. But, he said, marveling: “These are not Republicans.” Or not Republicans as he’d known them. They were no one’s constituency, until now.
“They were no one’s constituency, until now.”
If you can’t beat them, join them.
The Republicans have a victim group now. Let’s see if they can keep it.
As Robert Huges said, “Since our new-found sensitivity decrees that only the victim shall be the hero, the white American male starts bawling for victim status too.”
Danny Thomas:
That game used to be played by the establishment. Clinton and a number of Republicans were vetted by the establishment. But the peasants stormed the Republican castle and decided to make their own choice. From their point of view, they knew what was wrong. That was sufficient. Next go around, it will be different. Super Delegates will be part the Republican nomination.
Ragnaar,
“Super Delegates will be part the Republican nomination.” That would be expected wouldn’t it. Apt description of the times.
The question, for me, is if the ‘insurrection’ should be supported to a highly variable end or go the more ‘conservative’ route and stay with the status quo. Or even toss out to an outlier.
And I fully respect that choice. I wish I had your faith.
I’m working hard on how I will decide and can only hope Trump is putting in as much effort (he may wind up as my president if I like it or not). I will not allow myself to opt out as I’m not wired that way, so now I find myself faced with a decision between folks I wouldn’t hire for the job. But with only two (major) candidates it presents as a dilemma.
There are many intelligent folks who kindly provide their insight. The feedback mechanism provided here is a tool I’ve not had available to me prior to this presidential election so I’m trying to take advantage of the resource. Please forgive any transgressions as I make no intent to offend. I do choose to respond in kind when it’s made personal. But in part that’s some of the entertainment value of this thread.
“I don’t believe you. Track record is everything.”
Like when I was a democrat, err, independent, republican, democrat, I mean republican all while supporting, I mean rejecting the Iraq war and planned to ban Muslim’s while not really banning them all while building a wall which isn’t really gonna get built?
And the entire time I was Great!, it was Great!, and did I mention I was Great?
If you believe that any of us has a track record that could match that of Donald Trump, you’ve completely lost the plot. Just look at his children. Look at the business empire he’s built.
Clinton Inc., of course hasn’t done too badly.
We can question the means by which both dynasties achieved their great success.
There is, however, one striking difference between the two. Trump admits that he is part of the establishment, and took full advantage of all the privileges and opportunites it offers, as unseemly and malordorous as they may be.
Clinton, on the other hand, sanctifies the establishment and the role she has played in it.
Just have a bit of fun with Springers suggestion that ‘the track record’ is all that matters. Because when one follows ‘the track’ one might find a bit of a meander with a few forks and potholes.
When I hire a new president, I look to them for leadership. State a plan, delegate, and implement.
David, being the grunt kinda guy he projects to be, seems to prefer to follow command who doesn’t know where it’s heading, has no idea how it’ll get there, and knows not what it’ll do when it arrives. Heck, he doesn’t even know what clothes to pack. But good on him for following faithfully.
Meanwhile install Adblock Plus on your browser and then watch Weepy Willard’s messages disappear into spam oblivion. Join half a million others with this free add-on:
From the article:
…
On July 14, Texas police detective Nick Selby penned an op-ed in which he described gun control pushes as misplaced, arguing instead for criminal control.
He pointed out that every high-profile attack post-Sandy Hook Elementary School has been followed by a gun control push from Obama, yet the laws pushed are never realized, and in cities where such laws exist, no difference is made, such as in Chicago.
Writing in The Washington Post, Selby conceded that he and his fellow officers would like the levels of gun violence diminished, but he stressed that the way to do it is not via gun control, but criminal control. He wrote:
Mass shootings remain outliers. Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. The tyranny of everyday shootings—the 12,000 homicides a year that happen so regularly that some people don’t even call 911 anymore—follow patterns completely divorced from the weapons used. These shootings have much more to do with the realities of life for the poor, the drug-addicted, the mentally ill and the criminal.
… http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/16/detective-forget-gun-control-focus-on-criminal-control/
The last photo with the Kadar tweet is great. As one of those lefty, ohhh look at how enlightened I am, kind of guy , characterized by a dour, lecturing demeanor that you usually present in your comments, you have surprised me with some great humor.
You’ve become a real comedian. You’re not yet a Lucille Ball, but then neither is Tina Fey.
Wishful Willard I can’t see your responses. I have an ad blocker installed in my browser and rightly recognizes your responses as spam and disappears it. Try to use your own words, if you have any, if you wish me to respond.
““If it’s reasonable for Trump to want to make sure his potential running mates are doing their taxes on the up and up, it’s equally reasonable for the American public to want to know the same about his taxes,” he said.”
“I put lipstick on a pig,” he said. “I feel a deep sense of remorse that I contributed to presenting [Dr. Frankenstein’s Donald] in a way that brought him wider attention and made him more appealing than he is.” He went on, “I genuinely believe that if [Dr. Frankenstein’s Donald] wins and gets the nuclear codes there is an excellent possibility it will lead to the end of civilization.”
If he were writing “The Art of the Deal” today, Schwartz said, it would be a very different book with a very different title. Asked what he would call it, he answered, “The Sociopath.”
Starting in late 1985, Schwartz spent eighteen months with [Dictating Donald] —camping out in his office, joining him on his helicopter, tagging along at meetings, and spending weekends with him at his Manhattan apartment and his Florida estate. During that period, Schwartz felt, he had got to know him better than almost anyone else outside the [Dictating Donald] family. Until Schwartz posted the tweet, though, he had not spoken publicly about Trump for decades. It had never been his ambition to be a ghostwriter, and he had been glad to move on. But, as he watched a replay of the new candidate holding forth for forty-five minutes, he noticed something strange: over the decades, [Dictating Donald] appeared to have convinced himself that he had written the book. Schwartz recalls thinking, “If he could lie about that on Day One—when it was so easily refuted—he is likely to lie about anything.”
Tony Schwartz admits he can be paid to lie as an explanation for how the supposed untruths went into “The Art of the Deal”. Was he paid for this “tell all” by people desperate to keep The Donald out of the White House? You can’t trust a liar, Unwary Willard, and the only thing we know for sure about Tony Schwartz is that he’s a liar.
Wailing Willard knew the content and veracity was questionable, of course. It was obvious. So Waffling Willard thought he’d defuse me pointing it out by predicting it.
Schwartz purports that he (Schwartz) filled the book with lies, lies of omission, misdirection, and exaggeration. He also writes that The Donald was unwilling to contribute much in the way of answering questions and changed very little of what Schwartz wrote but rather only crossed out some criticisms Trump had made of people in the past whom he no longer wished to criticize.
Schwartz either lied then or he’s lying now or both. The only we know for sure is Schwartz is a liar. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
Europe is absolutely terrified that Obama is going to destabilize Eurasia, and even more terrified of Hillary getting in, who’s indicated she’s going to appoint a superhawk, the Cheney protege Michele Flournoy, as Secretary of Defense, and appoint Victoria Nuland as Secretary of State.
I’ve been in Germany twice in the last two months, and they’re really worried that somehow America is telling Europe, let’s you and Russia fight. And basically it’s a crisis.
Other than the interests of the Military-Finance-Big Oil industrial complex, I don’t see how our permanent war in Eurasia, North Africa and the Middle East behooves the geopolitical interests of the United States.
Because of the shale revolution, the United States has a surfeit of natural gas, and North America is nearing oil independence. If not for the crash in oil prices, which stunted oil development in Canada, Mexico and the United States, North America would already be very close to achieving oil independence.
The net: We no longer need the oil and natural gas from that region of the world. So what are we fighting for?
Why is it incumbent on the United States to pay the price, in treasure and blood, to insure Europe’s energy supply?
Why can’t Europe work out its own energy supply problems?
And with Turkey looking increasingly unstable, the dream of a Qatar-Turkey-Europe natural gas pipeline looks more remote than ever.
If everything happens like ‘he has said many times’… at least we have data from the original experiment to estimate between. This is science in the making.
Thank you for the link and access for all of us to the article.
“Importance The Affordable Care Act is the most important health care legislation enacted in the United States since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.”
And herein lie the answers as to why the POTUS would have had written for him, such a piece. He views his legacy as sand in an hourglass and time is running out. And as one grips a handful of sand from the beach tighter and tighter, the sand runs out more quickly. Obama is imbued with his own self-importance.
Obama rightly sees that ACA is under attack from whom he ascribes to special interests and hyper-partisanship. And, as costs of joining exchanges and co-pays escalate, and insurance options dwindle as insurance companies withdraw having lost money on the chronically ill who signed up and the Federal subsidies will mostly go away after 3 years, the ultimate failure of ACA has been its inability to control health care costs as they currently escalate at a rate greater than before. Manufactured data does not change the money side of health care operating in a parallel universe from the architects of its supposed reform.
About 70% of health care costs are related to those who are chronically ill. Making it illegal to consider pre-existing condition in the pricing of health care premiums means that the cost shift onto those who are well is now even greater than before. In addition, there is the high cost of dying, mostly by the elderly, dying in hospital with all its associated risks. Medicaid is being scavenged by nursing home costs and Medicare is shouldering a greater burden of cancer treatment care.
The ACA was yet another attempt to have a system to ration care just like the rest of the developed countries do, and, by the way, the reason their health care costs are less. Rationing care but not telling people the Federal government is rationing care is the trick.
Finally, who is JAMA’s audience? medical practitioners. Obama does not need to lecture medical providers upon the vicissitudes of billing and eligibility checking, and a host of other record keeping requirements. Rather, I believe Obama wants to use this medical journal article as a cudgel against nay sayers, just as he uses/abuses his office advocating for drastic and unpopular measures regarding climate change. No different. Same old. Same old.
JAMA is an old and respected medical journal laced with opinion pieces here and there so when the POTUS calls to say he wants to write an opinion piece on his legacy issue, no worries. Just another person with another opinion. Right or wrong, even the POTUS is entitled to his opinion.
It isn’t poorly written, but language like “Sharply decreasing from 19.1% in 2010 to 17.8% in 2015” isn’t what I would expect from academics without some agenda. :) Clinton and even Bush have been published in journals as opinion pieces,but this is shooting for something a tad higher.
Capt’nDallas
The thing that gets me is attempt at appearing to be a “science” paper.
“United States Health Care Reform: Progress to Date and Next Steps” dives into the recommendations Obama has for the next president to improve the U.S. health care system and assesses the Affordable Care Act”
Obama is addressing future Presidents of the United States. In part, he is addressing a future much as Dwight Eisenhower spoke to the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex and the distorting of science by government funding. Obama just doesn’t have the credentials of an IKE, nor the eloquence of a JFK. Obama is at the tail end of a career do nothing politician and as an example of what not to do as a President.
Captain Smith on the Titanic realized what he had done wrong, the miss calculations and opportunities, and the inevitable decision to: go down with the ship. Failure as President speaks more loudly than failure at being a captain of a large ship. Obama’s tenure as President is about as illuminating as William Henry Harrison. Not much.
Those who rallied around Obama will remain disappointed, for as a President, he remains a dud. As for Obamacare and the ACA, his failure in the very beginning to be materially involved, has lead to his signature legislative endeavor to become a bust.
What a pity. So much has been riding on a charismatic leader who in reality was a legislative closet politician.
Thanks Dallas. I’m a stackexchange.com member. Also a member of a companion group stackoverflow.com. Both are computer terms. A stack is a common temporary storage structure on almost all microprocessors to the best of my knowledge. A stack exchange is usually the swapping of one stack for another in a context switch. A stack overflow is a common software bug where the stack’s capacity has been exceeded.
You are right. Here is a useful article from the BBC complete with interactive graph. Police Killings are down but are down dramatically if an increase in police numbers is taken into account
G/S not going to work anymore. The financial system has ‘evolved’. Nobody is going to disconnect the economic models from the system. I once thought the very existence of negative interest rates was a software failure mode. – But here we are. The world hasn’t exploded so observations trump theory. Technology advances across all human endeavors and financial systems are perhaps the pinnacle of this phenomenon.
Danny Thomas:
Something you can do with your own money. Invest in low cost S & P 500 and/or total bond index funds. No banker is getting my money to fritte away with some pie in the sky investment. I trust companies like Google not to be taken by these charlatans.
“Ryan is repeating the old “personal responsibility” language conservatives have developed to shift people’s thinking about government and democracy away from the idea that We the People are in this together, toward a selfish idea that we should all be on our own. Of course, this leaves individuals defenseless against the powerful forces of aggregated wealth and power.”
Now Johnson is saying the poor are victims of aggregated wealth and power. What happened to plain old wealth? Wealthy people are now aggregaters. Farmers aggregate land, house builders aggregate wood. Carmakers, metal and plastic. What do governments aggregate? Things that used to be our rights. We’ll take care of that, don’t worry.
Should we blame the poor for being poor? I’d say it’s half their fault and half the government’s fault. But in some cases it’s 110% their fault using Schmidt’s attribution methods. You can lead the unemployed to a job, but you can’t make them work.
Sure, the Anti-Rent War is an example of where the poor got tired of being poor and the tenant farmer/share cropper is an example of where the poor became accustom to poverty. By the way, there isn’t anything wrong with poverty, chastity and obedience, at times they are even admirable qualities. Bitching about them and not doing anything though is a problem.
One might reach back to George Bernard Shaw and his description of the “deserving poor” and the “undeserving poor.” Deserving poor were the aged, disabled, and temporarily down on their luck. The underserving poor were those who could but didn’t work.
I am of the mind whereby social engineering and welfare have “stunted” those undeserving poor into an economic model where the pain of economic mediocrity feels OK.
I think that Arthur Schopenhauer’s statement: “Pain makes man think; thought makes man wise, and wisdom makes life more endurable” sums my belief regarding social welfare, and without some pain along the way, slough and feelings of bitterness towards others with wealth and a sense of entitlement tends to develop.
The pain of economic uncertainty is a stimulant for most people. Blunting that economic pain with social welfare condemns some to a life of ‘quiet desperation” per Henry Thoreau.
Personally, I wish there were a way to enhance people’s lives, particularly children without the drag of dependency and depression of social welfare.. No easy way forward as far as I am concerned.
It was undoubtedly easier to ferret out free-riders — not only those at the bottom of the pecking order, but those at the top as well — when man lived in smaller societies with more face-to-face contact. It’s far more difficult in the vast, large-scale societies of tens or hudreds of millions of individuals that most of us live in today.
But even in those smaller-scale societies the definition of free-rider varied significanlty between cultures.
In our own Western Civilization, we experiened a sea change in how we define free-riders, and what do do about them, in the 16th century:
The latter Middle Ages had bequeathed, to all the cities of western Europe, a tangled mass of charitable foundations and endowments set up by individuals, guilds, and clergy, and administered by a wide range of bodies, albeit frequently staffed by members of religous orders. Numerous charitable houses and institutions, as well as friaries and monasteries, distributed alms and dispensed sick care, food, and fuel….
During the first half of the sixteenth century, western Europe, both Protestand and Catholic, was swept by new attitudes, and a new approach, to the problem of poor relief. There were several factors behind this change. Partly, it was a response to humanist criticism of monks and friars and the principle of unrestricted giving of alms, and charity, to beggars. Partly, it was an inherent result of the Reformation which, by sweeping away the Catholic clergy, and confiscating Church property and revenues, left a gap in urban welfare which civic government had no choice but to fill. But partly also, the change resulted from population growth, the rapid expansion of the largest cities in most of Europe, and burgeoning of the problem of poverty.
Fundamental reorganization was unavoidable and it was only the city governments which could undertake it. Both the administration and the aims of welfare changed. Late medieval religiosity accorded a sacred value to poverty, begging, and giving alms, which the new humanist philosophy of poor relief was unwilling to share. Priority was now assigned to checking the growth of poverty, vagrancey, and idleness, so the new approach tended to be much more quesitoning, if not outright hostile, to begging and alms-giving.
— JONATHAN I. ISRAEL, The Dutch Republid: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477-1806
The rise and fall of the Dutch Empire is key to understanding our current predicament. It was the second of the four great global, hegemonic empires — Spanish, Dutch, British, American — which ruled over the earth since the advent of the Reniassance. And more importanlty, Dutch capitalism was the precursor to our brand of Anglo-American capitalism that we practice today.
Much to their credit, the early Dutch elite did practice what they preached. They lived an austere, unpretentious lifestyle, worked extremely hard, and were highly productive, as Calvinism and the new humanist doctrine would have it.
“By 1648 the Dutch were indisputably the greatest trading nation in the world,” C.R. Boxer writes in The Dutch Seaborne Empire, 1600-1800.
However, the “transition from a merchant oligarchy to a rentier oligarcy,” Boxer exlains, was not long in coming. It required only “three generations.” Those who presided over the Dutch empire went from a generation of “burgher-oligarchs and merchant-adventurers” to an idle and largely unproductive dynastic elite, living off its rents, and aspiring to “marry into the urban patriciate.” And it became incredibly corrupt, though the dynastic ambitions were probably more corrosive to the society:
In the long run, nepotism probably did more harm to the body politic than did bribery and corruption. It certainly aroused more opposition, and it increasingly divorced the interests of the ruling oligarchy from those of the middle and lower classes.
And as the Dutch elite grew wealthier, more ostentatious, more corrupt, and more dynastic, its treatment of workers grew much harsher:
Although adequate unemployment statistics and other relevant materials are lacking, it is clear from numerous contemporary accounts of the Dutch Republic in its ‘Golden Century’ that ecomoic expansion and national prosperity were accompanied by great poverty among many groups of workers, as happened later in England during the Industrial Revolution….
As early as 1566 a Leeuwarden chronicler noted that, in sharp contrast with the wealthy regents and merchants, stood the mass of the ‘humble, distressed, and hungry common people.’….
Out of 41,561 households at Amsterdam in 1747, some 19,000 were living in squalid back premises, cellars, and basements….
The lot of the ordinary manual woker was hard; and the infrequency of overt unrest was due rather to the absence or weakness of the workers’ organization (as Violet Barbour points out) than to the ‘paternal and enlightened regime of the upper-middle-class dictators’, as claimed by Professor G.J. Renier.
It is true, however, that class differences in the Dutch Republic, as elsewhere, were usually accepted as an aspect of the eternal scheme of things. Moreover, the urban proleatriat were unarmed, and the burgher militia or civic-guards could be relied on to obey the orders of the regents in the event of any conflict with the grauw….
Hard as were the living conditions of the industrial and agricultural workers, the life of the seafaring communities was even harder….
During this time a Dutch skipper could usually count on mustering a crew despite the low wages and the spartan rations which were the general rule. Such, at least, was the case with ships trading in European waters; for it was often otherwise with East and West Indianmen bound for distant seas and notoriously unhealthy tropical lands, from which there was not much more than an even chance of returnign alive.
RiHo08, one of the things that aggravates the hell out of me is there is no real safety net for small property owners. During the mortgage bubble there were millions of foreclosures on lower end homes that owners could have stayed in until the recovery provided there was a reasonable homestead exception or bankruptcy protection for the paycheck to paycheck population. In order to be “impoverished” you have to lose everything and it is much more cost effective to not kick people out of humble homes.
“there is no real safety net for small property owners”
I don’t know yet I speculate that the preceding “savings & loan” meltdown, where the Feds had to bail out a number of risk-takers that the mean-face of “let the chips fall where they may” permeated the culture of bankers regarding poor people with mortgages “under water.” When the same mean-face was turned to big banks and several did fail, it was then that the consequences of loans securitized by non-understandable debt instruments became clear and the rush to prop up “banks too big to fail” occurred.
The small amount of money it would have taken to “tidy over” the poor householders would have been infinitesimal compared the trillions pumped into big banks.
I agree with you that it would have made sense to keep most of the poor in their homes instead of insisting on foreclosure. There were a few gamers whom I would label undeserving middle-class who had second and third mortgages on speculative property that should have gone down anyway.
I wonder what will happen to the poor mortgage holder at the next financial down turn. Many of those were/are black, and, certainly having a black POTUS didn’t help them at all. My fervent hope is that the credit unions that seem to have taken over the services of the local savings and loan banks, will not be the next symbolic lesson of what not to do.
Thank you for the history lesson on charitable giving during the Middle Ages. I hadn’t quite put the interplay and then evolution of charity and alms together as succinctly as your quotes. I was somewhat aware of the decline and fall of the Dutch trading empire, yet, the mean-spirited treatment of the poor from a Calvinistic point of view is not all that surprising.
I am at a loss when thinking about GBS’s “undeserving poor.” Maybe the trend in recreational marijuana use and reopening the opium dens would be a good place to start. Make it cheap, readily available, say every street corner, death sentences to dealers selling to kids and maybe some other draconian measures just to be sure.
Yeah. A fuzzy picture is starting to emerge, gain clarity, like out of a mind fog.
The NAACP And Black Lives Matter Are Talking Past Each Other
“The NAACP’s national convention in Philadelphia highlighted a fundamental split between the old-guard of the civil rights movement and Black Lives Matter on the most important issue to black Americans.”
I heard Hillary yesterday, couldn’t get to the TV fast enough to change the channel, talk about wanting to get black men into jobs programs after being released from prison.
Great. I have a good slogan for her: Use a gun, get a job!
I mocked this concept decades ago where some bleeding heart proposed college programs in prison. This was during the era where “Use a gun, go to prison” was popularized by law & order elected officials. I changed it to “Use a gun, go to college” to express the imbecility behind it. The time to intervene is before the crime. After the crime it’s just a reward for committing it.
What I DO support is “Use a gun, go to war”. I saw plenty of hood rats of all colors transformed by service in my beloved United States Marine Corps. I am 110% behind judges who are willing to commute a prison sentence into a military enlistment. The key here is the when a person enters the military they give up their constitutional right to due process and must answer to a different set of laws called “The Uniform Code of Military Justice” or UCMJ for short. There’s no constitutional revolving door for military crimes and military prisons are harsh. College programs are available free in the military and it’s a job too with decent pay and top shelf retirement benefits.
We should loosen up enlistment restrictions (which currently ban non-high school graduates and those with criminal histories) and encourage judges to, at their discretion, mete out sentences colloquially known as “Four in the Corps or Ten in the Pen”. The transformation from juvenile criminal thug to military man is a beautiful thing to witness.
> What I DO support is “Use a gun, go to war”. I saw plenty of hood rats of all colors transformed by service in my beloved United States Marine Corps.
Right on:
Micah Johnson left Texas for Afghanistan at 22, outgoing and eager to be a part of something important.
Eight months later, he returned home a different man, ostracized by many of his comrades and increasingly alone.
Gavin Long, the Baton Rouge cop killer, was a former sergeant in the Marine Corps. I didn’t say it worked every time. Be very wary of pissing off Marine sergeants.
The point wasn’t about cop killers though it was about what to do with inner city hood rats to break the school-to-prison pipeline. Send them into the military. It’ll save many and perhaps enough to fix the problem.
> Gavin Long, the Baton Rouge cop killer, was a former sergeant in the Marine Corps.
Very good, Big Dave. Now you’re paying attention.
Here’s what you said, BTW:
The key here is the when a person enters the military they give up their constitutional right to due process and must answer to a different set of laws called “The Uniform Code of Military Justice” or UCMJ for short.
This doesn’t apply to Marine only. If this is key, then your “but Marine only” amounts to special pleading.
The USMC is looking for young people who have done well in school, have no drug or alcohol problems, and who are morally opposed to violating the law. A prospective recruit with a criminal record can apply for a waiver, but there are a lot of tough hoops through which to jump. Very different than the Corps of lore.
Yes JCH I said restrictions would need to be loosened at least when a judge sees fit to order it. The Corps did fine for over 200 years turning juvenile delinquents into men. What changed such that it wouldn’t work again?
David,
Show me. Don’t tell me. I see a link to a 44 second video on his site and there’s no plan in that. Unless you’re suggesting that “giving them more authority and respect” is a plan.
Your history of making faces and spitting out anything I find for you precludes me doing it again. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice and … uh … never fool me again.
David,
It’s either there, or it’s not. Care to show me? I told you what I found, and crystal balls don’t seem to function well here (mine any more than yours). In order make sure I don’t ‘assume’ anything, maybe you could put yourself out this one time by making an exception. Unless……..
Had you not yourself volonteered that the Baton Rouge was a marine, I would gladly have done it for you. At least you did not fall into that one. Perhaps it means you’re learning something.
You now have to reconcile your praise of the military and the fact that both the Dallas and the Baton Rouge shooters were “transformed by service.” The psychological impact of military training and of going to war is quite well documented. You might not wish to go there, but hey, you’re the IQ here.
So Trump was just like Bush and Clinton in managing to avoid going to Vietnam. Shocker. I already knew that. I think I can even recall how. Off the top of my head – got the usual college deferments for 4 – 6 years which is about as long as a privileged white kid could get away with. Then Trump got some medical deferment. Something wrong with his feet. Probably mutant small toes. Clinton fled the country when his deferments ran out and Bush’s daddy got him a cushy job as a fighter pilot in the National Guard that he didn’t have to show up for more often than it took to get enough training to keep his wings and I think the last 9 months he didn’t even do that. Let his medical elapse maybe.
Trump did however attend a military academy and was the top dawg. Also quite the athlete. Check out all that he played. No wonder he developed a taste for fashion models. He goes for quality time instead of quantity time with women. Gives him more time to work. A rich famous teetotaler workaholic real estate developer with fashion model girlfriends and wives. Perfect. Just what the doctor ordered.
Well done David. Now you’ve made a case that being a draft dodger is worthy. Or at least that since ‘others’ did it, your guy is okay for doing it too!
I suppose when I run for president I could produce SAT and GCT test scores. College transcripts and tax records too. I held a secret clearance at one time too so the FBI should have lots of stuff on file.
When are you going to stop being an anonymous coward?
Danny he’s going to talk about all that stuff in a really long address on Thursday. Tune in. I’m done spoon feeding you. How many times will I need to repeat that do you think?
But “he’s going to talk about all that stuff in a really long address on Thursday.” One Mr. Flynn might suggest that’s a deflection, denial, or diversion.
Did I misread your having said I should see his website for the content to which you referred?
Oh, and this is what was coming if you fell for the “prison sentence”:
Think of it this way: you probably don’t have your own jet, but if you got pulled over in your car with expired registration, you’d get in trouble! Now, a plane is a far more regulated and intense means of transportation. However, since marginalizing entire races and genders somehow hasn’t ended [Delta Donald]’s campaign, flying with an unregistered plane certainly won’t. But he could still get in some trouble […]
Delta Donald will never get the 3 years prison sentence lower citizens would get, and thus would never have to deal with Big Dave’s desideratum of turning prison time into military time.
Willard, don’t know if old Le Pen appreciates being kicked out of the party by Marine. And now the creepy old Hebrew-basher has to live with revelations that grand-daughter Marion is the daughter of a Mossad agent.
Marine, by the way, is a party girl and republican, while Marion is an earnest Catholic with suspected royalist tendencies.
Scratch a conservative family and you’ll find deep differences. It’s a freedom thing.
Marion a “victim”, Willard? It’s like my “adoration” of Marion. Nobody says it, but you warn against it anyway.
You’ll note that her reference to Juppe’s age was strictly in regard to those denying the validity of older people’s votes in Brexit. A good point. The rest is just interpretation by the finger-wagging luvvie journalist. (God save us from the French variety of that lot, eh?)
Danny you seem to have replaced “speech had parts similar to Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech” with “very same words”. Where did you get this new information?
Here’s a plethora of articles discussing Trump’s plans for inner city yutes:
You do know how to google, right? And read? Sure you do. I must therefore conclude you aren’t interested in knowing and are just trying to yank my chain. I’m not going for your concern trolling, dikwad.
From the very first link from (and thank you for) your google search: “Trump used a term that generally refers to low-income urban neighborhoods. What he meant by rebuilding them is unclear.” Unclear?
“Trump said that Clinton wants to spend hundreds of billions on refugees and for that money, “we could rebuild every inner city in America.” Trump’s campaign provided no supporting numbers.” No supporting numbers?
Come on, mosomoso. PeterD praises French women, you come up with a video of the younger Le Pen with an incomplete transcript and nothing more than usual “either your with us or against us” crap. Then you distance her from her aunt, Madame Frexit herself, not without mentioning “patronising” and the way she looks.
It’s easier to fill these dots then your favorite Catholic’s call for indefinite “actions” in her war against “islamism.”
There’s no valid point behind Marion’s “should we forbid Juppé’s right to vote” in a referendum, which is indeed victimizing. For more context, please refer to Courage Fillion’s point. I do hope you’ll appreciate “capilotractés” as much as I do.
> This is what I wrote: “mete out sentences colloquially known as “Four in the Corps or Ten in the Pen”.
I know what you wrote, Big Dave. Repeating it doesn’t address what I did write in return. You also forget that what is less colloquially known as “waivers” is something that has been brought up out of necessity:
The story of that unnamed Air National Guard recruit (whose name is blacked out in his statement) is based on documents obtained by Salon under the Freedom of Information Act. It illustrates one of the tactics that the military is using in its uphill battle to meet recruiting targets during the Iraq war. The personnel problems are acute. The Air National Guard, for example, missed its recruiting target by 14 percent last year. And the regular Army missed its goal by 8 percent, its largest recruiting shortfall since 1979.
Danny, the low income housing and inner city revitalization situation is odd. In 2011, “low income” housing was running at over $430,000 per unit but could be built for ~$100,000per unit. Just changing the specifications so primarily small builders/contractors get a larger share of the projects, makes a bigger dent in unemployment and local economic impact. You can also increase the number of units that can be bought by residents, which can double or triple impact of the funding. For example the average Habitat for Humanity unit costs about $80,000 and they don’t have a major delinquency problem.
I can see properly spent money going 4 to 6 times further than the current SNAFU system.
Capt.
Thanks. Looks like a very in depth read. Will be on my near term list as improvement in the housing issue will likely reduce stress on other areas as a side benefit.
That’s right. The words were in the transcript…but in a furtive way. I actually read the words and missed the furtiveness. Having had a fair bit to do with translation, I’m never surprised by rough edges in YouTubes and foreign films.
Interesting to hear that Marion’s my favourite Catholic and that in pointing out family differences I must be unconsciously distancing her from Madame Frexit because I…well, I just do furtive stuff like that without knowing. I need someone to fill my dots, hear my dog whistles. Oh come on. You know what I mean.
Okay, so Marion did indeed say that the argument against older voices for Brexit could be applied to Juppe. We’ve now read that at two of your links. I think it’s a point well made, you don’t. Fillon shocks nobody by not agreeing. You and others think it’s victimisation and mockery of Juppe. I would call that capilotracte. There may be an element of gotcha…but that’s something you couldn’t possibly object to.
> I actually read the words and missed the furtiveness.
And I actually listened to what she said, which was said at the beginning of 0:47, so more than one second earlier than the text. Francophones don’t need to read the transcript. Populist crap is easy to get.
It’s capilotracté, BTW.
Dudeism can’t cover for Marion’s caricature of Courage Fillion’s point: young voters are the ones who will pay for their elders’ vote.
And yes, Marion, at age 26 and looking as she does, is a prime candidate for patronising is loud and clear.
She’s recently divorced, in case you’re interested to know.
I included the only link to the speech which had translation because many here don’t know French. Is that odd? I did not read the transcript till you called my attention to it. You read the transcript, Willard. You populist reader of transcripts, you!
And I’m aware that capilotracte, a word you seem so proud to know, should have an accent on it, as should Juppe. I even write El Nino without the accent. I’m a lazy boy when blogging…but I’ve been able to read/ translate some dozen languages without descending to pedantry. You know what I mean. It’s loud and clear. Fill the dots. No amount of HuffPoism can conceal the truth.
I actually read the subtitles when she was talking, mosomoso. And yes, I know that Marion’s not Marine. That was just my way of reminding you who was the boss.
So many times it happens too fast. You trade your passion for glory. I’m losing grip on the dreams of ClimateB*ll’s past, while I must fight just to keep them alive.
It’s the eye of the Big Cat. It’s the thrill of the fight. Rising up to the crap of Denizens. And the last one, Big Dave, stalks me in the night. He’s watching all despite AdBlockPlus.
No Wishful Willard, I quite happily let Adblock Plus do its job. I wish WordPress had a killfile. You’d be my first [plonk]. Seriously. You’re an annoyance. Nothing more.
LOL. From within the Time article: ” It’s just another example, as far as we’re concerned, that when Hillary Clinton is threatened by a female, the first thing she does is try to destroy the person.”
Jarrett Hill, a Twitter user whose biography describes him as an interior designer and journalist, apparently first noticed the resemblance between Ms. [Ditto Donald]’s speech and Mrs. Obama’s in 2008.
The point I made, David, is the use of the very same words which aptly describe Mr. Trump and has nothing to do with the speech or writers.
” It’s just another example, as far as we’re concerned, that when Hillary Clinton is threatened by a female, the first thing she does is try to destroy the person.”
I just pointed out boilerplate. Nothing others won’t be doing.
[… B]y claiming something you don’t seem to have the fortitude to back up, AK.
Just don’t have the time to play with Google, wading through all the recent references to the “plagiarism”.
Scientific prediction: it is boilerplate, and once the MSM has put their foot far enough into it, somebody in the Trump campaign (who has access to LexisNexis, which I don’t) will document how often various combinations of those symbols have been used, to make them look silly.
We can wait and see how it turns out.
Of course, it’s likely the MSM won’t report on their own embarrassment.
In case you had any second thoughts about Brexit, and what the Eurocrats and your own British traitors are up to, I wanted to point out this video.
Yanis Varoufakis was Greece’s finance minister during the confrontation Greece had with the Eurocrats last year. He kind of embellishes his own roll a bit to downplay how naive he was going in, and how badly he fumbled the ball, but nevertheless his testimony is a real eye opener as to just how dictatorial, tyrannical and anti-democratic the Euro masters are.
Your prediction can’t be wrong on any “because, boilerplate” prediction unless you specify the boilerplate first, AK.
How about all the bolded text here. Specific enough for you?
The trick is to turn the claim into an empty prediction to evade having to substantiate it.
Nothing empty about it.
I grew up in the United States, so I heard boiler-plate guff like that in political speeches since I was in Jr. High.
But maybe it’s not so common these days, with progressives and all.
Nice try, though.
Well, like I said, I’m just too lazy to wade through all the spam to document it. IMO I could. We’ll just have to see if somebody in the Trump campaign doesn’t go to the effort.
She starts out “From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life: “
My early experiences. It made me who I am. This is supposed to be personal, not boilerplate. And not something you got off the internet.
The thing to do would be to enter the phrases and see how many hits you get. Word is bond gives me 13,000,000. Work hard to get ahead gives me 91,000,000. Much ado about nothing gives me 3,500,000.
It looks pretty weak to me as phrases you read and hear all the time, but whatever turns your crank have at it. My parents always stressed getting a good education. Get a good education 8,500,000 hits. Not even as common as the ones she used.
AK, “Boilerplate. Pushing the aucience’s buttons.”
It was supposed to be presenting Melania Trump. Who she really is. And she starts by telling us what she was taught by her parents.
I think it was WC Fields who said what he learnt: “The key to success is honesty and integrity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
“Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden all accused of plagiarism. Who remembers?”
Well, Biden’s case was rather similar. The text concerned was much briefer, but similarly was about his origins, part lifted from Kinnock. But it knocked him out of the race. And was here in 2008.
“Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden all accused of plagiarism. Who remembers?”
I see it’s still remembered in 2015. Trump, talking to Hugh Hewitt, August, about the prospect of facing Biden as candidate:
“I think I’d match up great,” answered Trump. “I’m a job producer. I’ve had a great record. I haven’t been involved in plagiarism. I think I would match up very well against Biden.”
I loved this one. “your word is your bond” would typically proceed an explanation of what it means, “keep your promises” “The only limit” would typically proceed the limitation, “your willingness to work”. So without getting into too much detail, the “Astrophysicist” has his estimate off by a couple of orders of magnitude, which is about par for the course :)
Biden was accused of a lot more than one case of plagiarism. I suspect low poll numbers had more to do with him dropping out of the race than the plagiarism accusation but have been unable to find actual poll numbers at the time. I did run across one article that stated he had been running at around the 2% mark through most of 1987. I doubt the one case everyone heard the most about was actually more than a mistake by a mistake prone Biden. If he were actually plagiarizing then he would have had to believe nobody would do even the most basic of fact checking like if he were the first in the family to get a degree and the son of coal miners.
> So without getting into too much detail, the “Astrophysicist” has his estimate off by a couple of orders of magnitude […]
I understand, Capt’n. I would love to show you my proof that God exists and my solution to all the remaining Millenium prize problems, but I can’t get into too much details either.
***
> If he were actually plagiarizing then he would have had to believe nobody would do even the most basic of fact checking […]
Tell that to those who wrote at #GOPinCLE that Mrs Ditto Donald has an architecture degree:
A wide-ranging interview published in GQ in April 2016 reported that Trump did gain admission to the the University of Ljubljana by passing a “notoriously difficult” entrance exam, but left after just one year to pursue a burgeoning modeling career : […]
Willard, “I understand, Capt’n. I would love to show you my proof that God exists and my solution to all the remaining Millenium prize problems, but I can’t get into too much details either.”
Unlike your religious strawman, this is a simple exercise in probability. Language is not purely random and the Astrophysicist’s choice of how to break things down into phrase segments is arbitrary. A less arbitrary method is to use sentences or larger sentence fragments. Prior to making the comparison between Melania and Michelle, Michelle’s speech would be put in the plagiarism grinder to determine just how original her speech was. That provides a baseline. Then with 5 commonly used phrases, comparing sequencing of those phrases would give you a probability of 1 in 120. No arbitrary assumptions required.
Of course this is opposed to your political agenda :)
Willard, you get too excited about this stuff. It isn’t going to matter. Nobody was going to vote for Trump because his wife has a degree and nobody isn’t going to vote for Trump because she said she did and doesn’t should that be the case. What is going to happen is a backlash on the left for picking on the pretty lady with the cute accent.
A new, all time high, record smashing display of inanity. Congratulations are in order for the libtards. You’ve outdone yourselves, and that wasn’t easy.
Let’s hope there won’t be too much backlash about that one too.
An excerpt for Big Dave:
University of Pennsylvania Professor Diana Mutz, who teaches at [Diabolical Donald]’s alma mater, argued that readers might see parallels between [Diabolical Donald]’s political style and the book’s villain, Lord Voldemort.
“I think a lot of the identification of [Diabolical Donald]’s dominating kind of politics is something people associate with Voldemort,” she told TIME. “So it makes some sense that if you have been exposed to these long series of books where he is the ultimate kind of incarnation of evil, that the characteristics that are more aggressive tactics and so forth that [Diabolical Donald] represents are less attractive, even leaving aside how it affects your policy attitudes.”
> Language is not purely random and the Astrophysicist’s choice of how to break things down into phrase segments is arbitrary.
That’s not what Bob did, Cap’n. He simply calculated the ikelihood that fourteen distinct phrases from two texts can be in the exact same order, Cap’n. If you can’t come up with your own solution to this Very Difficult Problem, ask Sir Rud about his special formula. He might need to break some Harvard Graduate Econometric Oath, but if he esteems you like I do, he’ll consider breaking it.
Nameless one, “==> Then with 5 commonly used phrases,.. .==>
Seriously? No mention of sequence and proximity?
Must be a coincidence, eh?”
The Astrophysicist picked “distinct” phrases like “your achievements”, “your dreams” and “in this nation” from a political campaign speech. What are the odds?
Willard, “He simply calculated the ikelihood that fourteen distinct phrases from two texts can be in the exact same order, Cap’n”
your achievements, your dreams, in this nation, our children etc.14 factorial. your dreams, your dreams, your dreams, your dreams ;;; is one of his probabilities. To boot, he arbitrarily determined what he thought were “distinct” phrases based on comparing just the test in question. I am pretty sure he could find that there is a 1 in a couple million chance that Rosalynn Carter plagiarism Michell with those “distinct” phrases for a political address.
Bob could for sure, Cap’n. And so do you, right after you’ve shown Denizens how Bob is off by “a couple of orders of magnitude.”
Meanwhile, something for your consideration:
[I]f you graph the word positions in English text against the number of words that would be grammatically possible as the next word given the last few words of the text, although the numbers vacillate wildly, the average across them all tends to settle in at something approaching 100. If that’s right, then at any arbitrary starting point in an arbitrary text, if text was being composed at random, the probability that you will find the next 14 words match some previously designated sequence of 14 words is very roughly in the region of 1 in 10^28, , i.e., 0.0000000000000000000000000001.
your word is your bond followed by an explanation of what it means. Melania used “do what you say and keep your promises” Michelle used “do what you say you will do.” “your word in your bond” is not a Michelle original and people that use that cliche typically follow it with an explanation. So Bob used a known cliche, “your word is your bond” as his “distinct” evidence of plagiarism followed by some something else assuming Michelle was original. Now perhaps, John W. Rogers Jr. cribbed Michelle, but I doubt it.
btw, this article mentions false positives and negatives issues with plag checkers if you are interested. turnitin came up with 1 in a trillion some others were as high as 1 in 10 trillion. You are assuming Bob’s estimate is low for some reason I cannot decipher.
If there remains any doubt about whether plagiarism occurred. This should settle it:
“Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama’s speech as examples. I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in the draft that ultimately became the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama’s speeches,” McIver said in the statement. “This was my mistake, and I feel terrible for the chaos I have caused Melania and the Trumps, as well as to Mrs. Obama. No harm was meant.”
Josh Marshall at TPM:
“The deeper story here is that Melania and Don Jr have seriously upped the ante for Trump on who he’ll plagiarize Thursday evening.”
Trump tweeted that her speech got more publicity that any speech in history. Attacking potential first ladies hasn’t been all that productive in the past :)
Thanks. So no plagiarism occurred. The short phrases everyone jumped on are far too common. Such as “my parents taught me that I had to work for what I wanted”. Give me a break. Look up trite and you’ll find that as an example.
I haven’t tried ID’ing Willard. I know how to identify idiosyncracies in written speech and google them. I do it routinely checking for plagiarism. Is that a challenge?
Not WRT me. Anybody who wants to know who I am can follow the link back to my blog, and go back a few posts to where I link to old stuff with my real name. (Before I found that old stuff, it was a little harder, but not that much.)
I just prefer not to splatter my name all over the internet these days.
One thing about those pragmatic Europeans, they sure to heck know where their bread’s buttered. Imagine if they had to start anteing up their fair share for NATO:
But even worse than that, imagine if the Europeans had to figure out for themselves how they’re going to break the stranglehold Putin has on their natural gas supply. They might even have to develop their own domestic energy sources.
And heck, doing that might put a dent into Team Green’s agenda, stuff like this:
Darn. Plagiarism by a politician’s wife? What next, accusations that some politicians are lying thieves, rogues, and vagabonds?
Surely not.
Scientists are far more ethical. Apparently, some definitely do not doctor data, fake experiment results, plagiarise the work of others. or commit fraud in order to obtain grant funds.
Totally more capable of running a country than elected politicians – in their own minds, of course! Politicians, just as with scientists, exhibit human traits. No better, no worse.
All is well. The universe is unfolding as it should.
Take Monday’s speech by former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani. Like previous speakers, he complained that President Obama has failed to identify “our enemy.” Giuliani described this enemy as “Islamic extremist terrorism.” Then he paused to lecture reporters: “For the purpose of the media, I did not say all of Islam. I did not say most of Islam. I said Islamic extremist terrorism.”
Well, that’s nice. But it’s not what Trump has said. Trump has said, “Islam hates us.” He has proposed a “complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” If you don’t like that position, don’t lecture the press. Lecture your nominee.
“An astrophysicist has used the power of mathematics to prove Melania Trump’s speech was plagiarised from First Lady Michelle Obama.”
The power of mathematics! James Hansen was an astrophysicist – his use of the power of mathematics maybe left a bit to be desired. Gavin Schmidt is an actual mathematician, but he seemed to have difficulty using the power of mathematics to do appropriate statistical analyses, so I believe.
The power of mathematics? Why not just ask the woman? Or should she be tossed in jail because an astrophysicist used the power of mathematics? I’d say it seems to be much ado about nothing, but I’d probably be arrested for plagiarism, or illegal use of intellectual property or something!
Pingback: U.S. Presidential discussion thread. Part XIII – Enjeux énergies et environnement
UK Department of Energy and Climate Change has been abolished. http://us4.campaign-archive2.com/?u=c920274f2a364603849bbb505&id=2bf3520294&e=d3ab024ae2
New UK ministers dominated by Climate Sceptics
She has put the Brexit leaders in high profile positions so they either succeed or fail. If they fail, they’ll be the first scapegoat, not her.
She is sending a clear message that the UK government has heard the peoples’ message. They want change. They do not want the old guard who defended “Stay” still in charge.
What fantastic news, eh? Some of the good consequences of Brexit I was hoping for but expected to take a decade to achieve are beginning within a day of Theresa May becoming UK PM.
May UK PM May lead the world to a renewal of The Age of Enlightenment.
And May we please have a May PM for Australia too please.
Trump’s poll numbers have improved somewhat. From the article:
…
Nervous Senate Democrats raised concerns with Hillary Clinton during a private meeting in the Capitol Thursday over a recent poll showing Donald Trump leading or tied in several battleground states.
“Some people were freaked out, they were looking down at the polls on Real Clear Politics and asking why it was so close,” said a Democratic senator who attended the meeting, referring to a website lawmakers were checking out on their personal devices.
Clinton’s response?
“She said there are other issues. People are unhappy and they don’t trust institutions,” the senator explained.
A second Democratic source in the meeting confirmed there was “a mention of the Florida poll.”
…
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/287845-democrats-freaked-out-about-polls-in-meeting-with-clinton
Is Brexit causing sanity to break out in the UK?
PM May merges the Dept of Energy and Climate in with Business.
Rise Of The Global Warming Skeptics In Britain
Climate Change and Business departments merged in cabinet reshuffle
Excellent! Britain is showign the way to real progress
I am lacking in information, but from what little I have read, Ms Rudd appears to be competent.
From the article:
…
“It sounds like here we go again,” he said. “We’re living in a whole different world. There’s no respect for law and order.
“This is crazy what’s going on,” the presumptive GOP presidential nominee added. “It’s a horrible thing. It’s bedlam … We have to get awfully tough and we have to get smart or we’re not going to have a society, we’re not going to have a world anymore.”
Trump said he would sharply restrict immigration from countries with likely terrorist ties in the wake of the massacre.
“This has to be dealt with very harshly,” he said. “I’d be making it very, very hard for people to come into our country from terrorist countries.”
“Our country has tremendous problems,” Trump continued. “We don’t need any more problems. What are we doing? We’re trying to so nice, we’re trying to be so civil.
…
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/287847-trump-bastille-day-terrorist-attack-horrific
Energy Companies Spend Big to Fight Colorado Ballot Initiatives
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/145661/Energy_Companies_Spend_Big_to_Fight_Colorado_Ballot_Initiatives?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2016-07-14&utm_content=&utm_campaign=industry_headlines_1
As messy as it’s been, the Redimowit party is coalescing around Trump. There are still some stragglers, but the specter of Cr00ked Billary looms on the horizon. Even some Dimowits in the gutted Heartland are turning towards Trump. She is looking for any chink in his Teflon suit, but the polls are turning on her. It will be interesting how she handles desperation. Her anticipated coronation, may be melting in her grasp.
Future historians will conclude the MSM was more interested in helping the Left demonize George Bush than of helping to fight the enemy at the beginning of WWIII.
Right on, Wag:
https://twitter.com/theintercept/status/751967947246170112
France is said to have strict gun control laws but the terrorist in Nice, France used a truck full of grenades and other arms as a weapon of mass destruction.
The tweet above was next in line.
Let’s retell our story.
The United States is said to have noise regulations, and yet:
https://twitter.com/DLin71/status/753805929875841024
Wee Weasel Willard wheezes about WMD and War. So, I suppose he thinks the US should have stayed out of war altogether in the Middle East?
What about this? And, I’m not saying the US should have jumped in. This war was initiated in the UN. Would this war NOT upset the militant Muslims? If practical, I would be quite happy to see the Middle East implode and destroy itself.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Kuwait
Adblock Plus makes Weeping Willard’s messages disappear! Awesome!
https://adblockplus.org/
Vote Trump!
So, you must be Pro Trump, who came out against the Iraq war, unlike Hillary, who voted for it. And she engineered Libya, and was secretary of state when ISIS came to power. I think she quit because she made such a ME mess it was better to put some distance between the mess and her candidacy.
Danny, “If Newt had proposed a similar suggestion that those who ‘teach Christianity’ (as an example) be ‘expelled’. I have to wonder how that response would be received. (Guessing I’ll find out shortly after posting this because I’m a ‘lefty’.)”
You could say the Branch Davidians in Waco Texas were “expelled” for teaching that their laws were above the laws of the land. Newt’s reference to Shira, or Shira Law, is that those teaching that their religious laws allow them to rape, pillage, plunder and kill in spite of the law of the land that prohibit rape, pillage, plundering and killing are a danger to society and should be expelled.
If you talked with a moderate Muslim, they would mention that “Islamists” are one group that believe in a global caliphate and the execution of several groups of individuals in a rather strict interpretation of Shira law.
I believe there are close to 1000 hate groups under surveillance in the US that claim a number of faiths that your average liberal wouldn’t mind expelling, unless they happen to be a constituency.
“unless they happen to be a constituency.” That’s funny, and may include the dead huh? But at least I don’t see anyone actually suggesting they be deported (at least not yet).
Danny, “That’s funny, and may include the dead huh? But at least I don’t see anyone actually suggesting they be deported (at least not yet).”
The dead vote does tend to be a democratic block :) I believe there are a large group of immigrants that don’t have citizenship which could be deported plus if you take an oath of allegiance to a foreign state, like say ISIL, you can be expatriated. I believe Newt is a bit of a historian :)
Capt.
Yes, he is a noted historian. And has a bit of a shady side (as do many of ‘the political persuasion’) as ascribed to his being reprimanded by the house.
Had he suggested the ‘removal’ of non citizens only I might have zero heartburn with his word choices. And for those who pledge allegiance to other than the U.S. we have treason oriented laws which could then apply.
If only he’d said those things.
So much to do, so little time. In order:
> So, you must be Pro [Dove Donald]:
Notwithstanding the affirmation of the consequent, Dove Donald is a myth:
https://twitter.com/PolitiFact/status/754053434878283776
***
> This war was initiated in the UN.
Notwithstanding that an Invasion followed by an occupation is not exactly a war, jim’s claim is more of a “curveball” than anything else:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_invasion_of_Iraq
***
Doubling-Down Donald is even reinventing the war on terrorism:
https://twitter.com/LondonEconomic/status/753895717383659520
Yeah as soon as I heard Newt say we should test Muslims for belief in Sharia and deport them if found in support it was made apparent that Pence was the better choice for Veep. Newt can really stick his foot in his mouth on rare occasions.
To be fair though in order to deport someone they cannot be citizens so he was necessarily not talking about Muslim-Americans. Knowing that however is beyond the grasp of lesser minds so Newt’s real sin is in not dumbing down his speech so people like Danny Thomas can understand it.
David Springer,
Gingrich may be doing this to open up some breathing room for Trump.
It seems to me that Trump has softened his anti-Muslim rhethoric. It is only natural that he would do this in an attempt to re-position himself more toward the center for the general election. Gingrinch, by staking out a more extreme position, makes Trump seem more moderate in comparison.
> Gingrinch, by staking out a more extreme position, makes [Deporting Donald] seem more moderate in comparison.
While this would be reminiscent of Big Dave’s role in the jim & Glenn show, Newt only suggests what Deportation Donald already did:
https://twitter.com/TaylorArluck/status/754095168647671808
Don’t like Weak Willard’s thread bombing? Adblock Plus blocks all his nonsense. Get it now. https://adblockplus.org/
P.S. Vote Trump! The not extremely careless one.
Trump has segued from banning Muslims to banning people from terrorist countries. It takes religion, race, ethnicity, whatever; out of the equation. Smart move.
Deportation Donald may need to be even smarter than that:
https://twitter.com/NciszivaTk/status/753611335175278593
Perhaps Deporration Donald ought to demand that deportees pay the $400 billion to $600 billion themselves.
Willard,
The question in my mind is this: Will Trump put an end to neoliberalism and the US/NATO imperial adventures in North Africa and the Middle East? These, in my opinion, are the ultimate, if not the immediate, causes of the mass immigration and mayhem now being experienced by Europe.
An article you posted on the last politics thread answers the question with a big “NO!”:
However, I very much disagree with the conclusion this article comes to.
Trump is somewhat of a wild card, an unknown, because he has no track record as a policy maker that we can scrutinize.
Clinton, however, has a very long track record, and everything about it screams neoliberal and neoconservative, putting her in the same league with Blair and Bush.
> The question in my mind is […]
Your mind is the lesser of my concerns, Glenn. Outside of it, there are lots of questions. I mean, lots. Just take all the questions that we could ask Delegate Donald about Paladino’s “hung for treason”:
https://twitter.com/HeHasntTweeted/status/754142052321898496
Wagathon,
If we are ever going to move past neoliberalism and neoconservatism, some sacred cows must be gorged:
And of course Nancy Pelosi wasn’t going to impeach George Bush, because both she and Bush are playing on the same neolib/neocon team.
Fight terrorism there or here? The Bush/Cheney strategy was over there whereas the Obama/Clinton Plan is to import terrorists.
Wagathon,
Why buy into the establishment’s BS?
We see the same thing happening domestically here within the United States.
First the establishment takes a wrecking ball to people’s livelihood:
http://i.imgur.com/RrWSULk.png
Then it destroy’s the rule of law, preferring instead the rule of strongwomen who set themselves above the law.
Then, when all hell breaks loose, the establishment tries to blame it on racial or religious differences, or the police, or guns. Any whipping boy will do, just so long as we don’t look too closely at the guys and gals in charge.
What are they going to blame the violence on now? Trucks?
And here’s some more “Change you can believe in”: the rapid decline in race relations in the United States since Obama took office that has come about due to overplaying the blame game:
http://i.imgur.com/epSZngv.png
The only major political figure I’ve seen of late to make a major issue of the structural causes of racial tension and violence, more than just the obligatory tip of the hat, is Newt Gingrich:
“And that’s about as dangerous as you can get.”
There are things which are more ‘dangerous’.
“Even Gov. Mike Pence, Trump’s apparent vice-presidential pick (which Gingrich lobbied hard to become), labeled Trump’s proposed Muslim immigration ban “offensive and unconstitutional.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/07/15/newt-gingrich-says-the-media-is-overreacting-to-his-plan-to-test-all-muslims-but-thats-what-he-proposed/?tid=a_inl
Gingrich. The go-to guy. Why let silly little ole’ constitutional amendments get in the way.
Another bit of disingenuous propaganda from Danny the Lefty. There is no Const. Amendment that says the US can control who can immigrate. They aren’t citizens. We can keep them out for whatever reason we choose.
Jim2,
Really? What did Newtie say? “If you’re a school which is teaching Sharia, you want to expel it from the country.” Does not exclude citizens.
“Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;”
But it’s probably a problem with the reporting.
Danny, we may be stuck with the Muslims that are already here. Those are the people on whom we need to concentrate surveillance and infiltration.
Jim2,
That may well be. But that is NOT what Newt proposed. You’re quick to damn me for ‘leftiness’. How about a word of rejection of Newt’s proposal which impinges on the 1st amendment of the constitution. Unless, of course, you’re willing to give up those ‘rights’. Then, I suppose, we play a game of pick and choose.
Policies are important. It’s why I harp on them.
Newt has the right idea, but it may not be implementable in the form he suggests. We could start prosecuting treason again, that could be legal and help a lot. Imam’s that encourage killing infidels could be put to death for treason.
Danny
Surely it also says that everyone has a right to free will and if that is denied it is punishable?
https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt1bfrag1_user.html#amdt1b_hd2
I am not sure that not all women in Islam could be called able to exercise their free will and surely Sharia courts are there to interpret the will of god rather than the law o the land? Of course the law of the land should trump everything, but in practice in closed societies sharia will be taken as the final word.
tonyb
Tonyb,
Free speech (even for Newt whom suggest we go against the 1st’s right of freedom of religion by ‘expelling’ those who teach Sharia with no regard for citizenship) is a valuable right.
My issue is the selective use of the amendments. If one goes in any fashion towards restraint of anything pertaining to the 2nd (gun rights) then it’s all out responses in support of the amendment. Yet here, Jim2 (&Newt) seem to support limitations of applicability of the 1st’s (freedom of religion).
If Newt had proposed a similar suggestion that those who ‘teach Christianity’ (as an example) be ‘expelled’. I have to wonder how that response would be received. (Guessing I’ll find out shortly after posting this because I’m a ‘lefty’.)
The selectivity is farcical.
Tonyb,
Further thought. We’re effectively discussing ‘extremism’. IMO it’s an ‘extreme’ response to be willing to ‘set aside’ the rights of any citizen to lead us towards some ‘ideal’ of a particular segment of the entirety. The ‘entirety’ is all of the U.S. citizenry. Not those groups with whom one disagrees. Much like marriage, it takes work to live in our republic. The easy choice is to remove rights of those with whom we disagree. The tougher choice is to enforce the rights detailed in the amendments for all. Selectivity is an immature approach.
Some don’t care for work.
First things first. It’s important to get all the facts, and not just part of them.
First priority should be to get Gingrich’s comments straight from the horse’s mouth, and not filtered through the highly elitist lens of the billionaire Jeff Bezos’ Washington Post, which has shown itself to be one of the most biased propaganda rags around:
Glenn,
Let’s do that.
Newt’s words (from your link): “We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. Sharia is incompatible with Western civilization. Modern Muslims who have given up Sharia, glad to have them as citizens. Perfectly happy to have them next door. We need to be fairly relentless about defining who our enemies are. Anybody who goes on a website favoring ISIS or al Qaeda or other terrorist groups, that should be a felony, and they should go to jail.”
No freedom of religion in that suggestion. “Every person” “Deported” (even citizens?). Maybe Newt needs a ‘highly elitist’ filter, but I won’t suggest that occur as it would impinge on his right to free speech.
Danny Thomas,
Nice ad hoc rescue, quickly changing the subject to another topic.
But what’s your opinion on the structural causes of violence? Do you believe they exist? Do you believe they are important? Do you believe they need to be addressed? And if so, how?
Glenn,
Thank you for the compliment.
“But what’s your opinion on the structural causes of violence? Do you believe they exist? Do you believe they are important? Do you believe they need to be addressed? And if so, how?”
“And if so, how?” My first choice would not be removal of the rights detailed in the amendments.
The rest is above my pay grade. I have opinions, but they are exactly that, opinions. Some are distasteful even in my own mind. But I look to the guidance of the constitution and associated amendments for a road map.
Can you detail answers to the questions you posed? Actually, I’d only be concerned with the last one. Would you propose ignoring the 1st amendment in order to achieve that which you perceive to be the ‘desired’ outcome? This is Newt’s suggestion. Thoughts?
Again, my issue is with the selectivity of application of the bill of rights. It surprises me when some who support a portion of those rights come out in defense of one who wishes to selectively apply them.
I know nothing of Jeffery Goldberg nor his qualifications, but here’s an interesting perspective one might wish to consider: “For the sake of consistency, if nothing else, Gingrich ought to call for the investigation of these sharia-supporting Israelis.”
http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2016/07/gingrich-nice-sharia/491471/
But there’s probably a problem with the reporting.
Thankless Euros have been using global warming to back-stab America for decades. France was to have a pass from the beginning based on being mostly nuclear. Germany’s built-in protection from ever paying a dime came from being provided credits for replacing all of the dated and unproductive communist-era energy production facilities in East Germany (which is what Germany would have done irrespective of Gore’s anti-America carbon-trading scheme). Bush had the temerity to support America with his whole heart and call BS on the raping America’s free enterprise economy to fund relentless expansion of Western socialism; and, that is why the Eurocommies and the Leftist establishment and MSM in the US still hate Bush.
Danny, had to leave for a bit. Thinking about this a bit more, Sharia LAW is that part of Islam the defines the GOVERNMENT of Islam, not the religion; even though it is based on the religion.
In the US, we need to make it legally very clear that no law other than US law is legal in the US. It would be ILLEGAL and therefore punishable by US LAW to practice Sharia LAW. Anyone who practices Sharia LAW could then be deported or jailed, preferably deported.
I think we could make it work.
Jim2,
Aha! Common ground. I agree that ‘our’ law trumps. Having said that, how does one go about ‘enforcement’ of religious oriented systems which are more strict than ‘our’ law? That is a completely different conversation than one which ‘bans muslims’.
We can get there Jim, just not at the cost of restrictions on our constitution/amendments and that was the issue I have with Newt’s proposal. A bridge too far.
You may see me as ‘a lefty’ yet place a mirror in front of your face when you realize that I’m suggesting that an interpretation of the 1st is in fact more along the lines of a non selective approach. Much as you’ve done with the 2nd.
If we wish to discuss no immigration for any without vetting (to be determined) then that would not be selecting out any particular group. I fear for the slippery slope and where it leads.
As a follow up, no where am I suggesting Clinton as an improved alternative no matter how much you wish to read that in to my words. Still looking for reasons to vote ‘for’ a candidate.
Regards,
Danny Thomas,
Well you surely are good at changing the subject.
But my questions are not about Locke’s political liberalism, but about another Enlightenment notion: the belief that “men would not come in conflict with one another, if the opportunities were wide enough.” (Reinhold Niebuhr, The Irony of American History) “This assumption was shared by our Jeffersonians with the French Enlightenment.”
As Azar Gat explains:
Many, including Thomas Jefferson (the author of the Bill of Rights), argue that the political liberalism you speak of was impossible if economic inequalities were too great.
Speaking of the French officers who fought in the Ameerican War of Independence, Jefferson warned:
Not for a moment did it occur to Jefferson that people so “loaded with misery” — the two-fold misery of poverty and corruption — would be able to achieve what had been achieved in America.
And then there was Benjamin Franklin, who, finding himself in Paris, thought:
According to the Founding Fathers, the “reason for success and failure [of the American Revolution] was that the predicament of poverty was absent from the American scene but present everywhere else in the world,” writes Hannah Arendt in On Revolution.
Danny Thomas,
And I’ll ask you the same question I asked jim2.
Do you agree with this statement by Henry Steele Commager?
Danny,
I believe you are focusing too much on a narrow interpretation of Gringrich’s comments. Widen your perspective and don’t get hung up trying to dissect what are media talking points, not actual policy.
Advocating for adherence to Sharia law can be framed as advocating for sedition. There are numerous claimed religious practices which are not considered legal in the US
Dear Denizens,
Throwing “ism” words around like that is all well and good. However, that’s not how we address Wag’s argument:
More expedient seems to be a simple transposition:
Since Wag seems to infer opposite conclusions in both cases, it seems to me that this kind of argument should be dropped.
While you think about it, some Devise Donald:
https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/754119589903171584
Go team!
“some sacred cows must be
gorgedgored”Fixed that for ya!
Danny, “If only he’d said those things.”
It would be nice if we could return to yesteryear when when people spoke in complete sentences. He did say that Shira (law) is incompatible with western civilization. Pretty much every western civilization has destroyed itself trying to become more “civilized”, so I would be more concerned with what is really compatible with the changing concept of western civilization.
Capt.,
I’m sorry, but I don’t think we can blame ‘misunderstanding’ on the media this time.
“Here’s a transcript:
So let me start with where I’m coming from, and let me be as blunt and as direct as I can be: Western civilization is in a war. We should frankly test every person here who is of a Muslim background, and if they believe in Sharia, they should be deported. ”
Seems pretty clear, blunt, and direct (as advertised). Yes, he went on to complete his thought but I’m just quoting his words from the transcript. Maybe it’s not a problem with incomplete sentences but instead it’s a problem with incomplete thought or poor expression.
I don’t disagree with the ‘we’re at war’. And ‘that side’ doesn’t play fair so ‘this side’ must be ‘tough’. But at the expense of our rights? Don’t think that’s the correct path way and don’t support it. If this kind of thinking is accepted then the terrorists have already won and the ‘war’ is over (and we’ve lost).
What he expressed, even if mispoken, is what he expressed. And it’s certainly not a problem with ‘the reporting’.
There is something to be said about a student (or professor) of history: “MARCH 28, 2003: “A hateful regime will be gone, and except for Saddam, French President Jacques Chirac and the media analysts, almost no one will have had the sky fall on the them.”
“Almost no one will have had the sky fall on (the?) them”. http://www.aei.org/publication/cheer-up-chicken-little/
Sometimes chickens come home to roost.
Evidence, in part, for why I feel words and policies are important. Can only hope you’re with me on that Capt.
The teachings of the scientific method that we as a civilization successively and successfully managed to carry with us and nurture within us from its formative days since the time of the Greeks, has been a casualty of the Academia/UN alliance, a wedding of ideals that are grounded in their mutual opposition to the despised, foundational principles of Americanism (which is based on a respect for individual liberty and the need for personal responsibility, guided by a Judeo-Christian heritage and the liberal philosophy of the founders that are now branded by the Left as, conservative ideals).
For those who think that they’re faced with a choice between two political grubs, the rational thing would be to choose the lesser of two weevils.
(Sorry, but the Devil made me do it.)
Cheers.
:) Nice
There were two weevils, one become great and famous while the other became the lesser of the two weevils. Hence +1 for Mike Flynn
Mike
That’s actually quite profound.
tonyb
It’s stolen from Russell Crowe’s terrific 2003 movie “Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World”
Though it is unlikely that O’Brian was the first to coin the phrase
David Springer,
Where do you imagine the script writer took his inspiration from? Ask him, and it shall be revealed unto you!
Cheers.
Ok. I asked O’Brian. He said you Mike Flynn, are a well known plagiarist and most certainly stole it from him.
Thanks for playing.
Like Melania Trump?
I don’t believe it! Next they’ll be accusing somebody of plagiarism for repeating “motherhood and apple pie”.
AK,
I’m sure glad you brought that up.
See any bias here on the part of CNN’s headlines this morning?
http://i.imgur.com/tvtXfg9.png
For the CNN editors, yesterday was all about Melania’s “plagarism” and the “disunity, anger and disarray” of the “anti-Trump rebellion.”
Never mind what the “anti-Trump rebellion” was advocating, that the will of the millions of helots who voted in the Republican primaries be ignored:
That’s about all I do see.
Thing is, as I’ve said before, the hideously unfair way the MSM has treated Trump probably brings him more votes every time it happens.
I wonder what proportion of Trump supporters despise the MSM the way I do. I wonder how many people who (like me) despise the MSM decide that anybody they hate that much has got to be OK.
Not that I would necessarily agree with the latter, but the converse is certainly true: anybody who’d make an even halfway good president would get the same sort of treatment from the MSM.
David Springer,
“Sept. 4, 1883, Chicago Daily Tribune, page 11, “Quips” column.
“The wheat-growers motto–of two weevils choose the less.””
You were saying about plagiarism?
Cheers.
Interesting page (with which I’m sure you’re all familiar) is Wikipedia’s “List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming”. This is where I learned about Dr. Curry and this blog.
As regards the list, Dr. Curry is preceded (alphabetically) in the first tab on said webpage by Piers Corbyn (brother of Jeremy). The narrative on his page is astonishing. He has a bachelor’s in physics and master’s in astrophysics, but because he lacks a PHD his opinions on climate change somehow don’t matter?!
I was reminded of this while reading the comments here. In any case, I’m looking forward to following this blog and learning from you all.
Thank you,
Paul
Can you give us the URL link? Welcome.
Jim2 has it right. –Paul
And thank you!
Thanks for that, it is actually quite detailed.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming
Watching MSNBC report on the Nice horror and hearing their “experts” say the worst thing we could do in response is criticize Islam or tighten down on immigration of Muslim migrants. Also hearing these nitwits say that the chief reason for these attacks are US foreign policy.
Meanwhile the list keeps growing all over the world, including places where Jihad is waged against all unbelievers and US foreign policy has no effect whatever……so far this year:
1268 Islamic attacks in 50 countries, in which 11664 people were killed and 14087 injured.
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/attacks/attacks.aspx?Yr=2016
harkin1,
Not disputing your figures at all, but there were some 16,000 homicides in the US in 2013.
I assume that some were for religious reasons, but the result for the victims was the same. The US has around 5% of the world’s population, so the total of 12,000 deaths you report throughout the world is fairly minor by comparison with the US.
It’s a tricky area. People often call for the death of those with whom they disagree, and react with delight when informed someone has their life terminated. Smiles and handshakes all round!
On the other hand, those same people sometimes wring their hands in despair, and furiously oppose those who wish to end their own lives for perfectly rational reasons.
It’s a funny old world. A quiet life seems to suit me.
Cheers.
A lot of people disagreed with H1tl3r apparently. Sometimes, their death is a boon to civilization, eh?
Flynn the Imbecile speaks again.
Actually you miss the point completely (but points for the false equivalence). The deaths reported were strictly to do with Islamic terrorism. That means that all other homicides committed by Muslims are NOT counted.
Happy to help.
harkin1 said:
So you believe there is no blowback to the neoliberalism the US and its NATO allies imposed on North Africa and the Middle East, nor to the imperial adventures the neocons tricked us into?
I really don’t care what the cause is at this point, just get rid of the militant ones in an expeditious manner.
jim2,
“Just get rid of the militant ones in an expeditious manner”?
But at what cost to our civil and political institutions, and to our civil and political liberties?
Earth to Glenn – our rights, way of life, the Constitution, liberties, etc are being trampled on because of the terrorists!!! WE are already paying the political costs for these people. We are spied on 24/7 in the name of terrorism. Our gun rights are challenged in large part due to terrorism.
We have to do what’s best for us and let the Devil take the hindmost.
jim2,
Are you unaware that the United States has a long history, either directly or indirectly through its allies in the region, of supporting militant Islamic extremists?
We’ve supported a lot of unsavory people all over the world. In some cases it’s when we stopped supporting them that the sh*t hit our fan.
jim2,
And ever since that fateful day in 1979, the US and its NATO allies have continued to fund and support Islamic terrorists.
Here is but one of many examples that I could cite:
So what’s more imporant? Putting a stop to terrorism? Or regime change in Syria so that Europe, assuming everything else works like clockwork, can break Russia’s stranglehold on Europe’s natural gas suppy?
jim2,
And if the UK can rein in the Greens and anti-nukes, it has domestic options for developing energy supplies, like nuclear and the North Sea.
If the Greens and anti-nukes can take devolpment of domestic energy supplies off the table, that makes resource wars in the Middle East and North Africa seem much more plausible.
Blowback is an overused concept, particularly by people who like to blame the great Satan
According to a StatsCan report from 2012 – the most recent year available – the U.S. suffered a total of 8,813 murders involving the use of firearms that year. Canada, in the same year, recorded just 172 firearms-related homicides.
We (Canadians) have 10% of the population of the US, yet we don’t have 10% of the murder rate by firearms. Just under 2% of the US rate.
I wonder why?
John Robertson,
Those who defend the right of the public to be armed don’t care about such facts. Their usual tactic is to rant about something irrelevant.
Peter Lang, I live in a country with strict gun control laws, far far stricter than the USA, that has one of the highest murder rates per capita in the world. For the record I don’t own a gun and don’t want to.
oldfossil,
Thank you. Of course, when making such comparisons of murder rates or rates of gun related deaths (which is what we need to compare, not muder rates) between different countries, cultures, religions, etc. there are many other factors that have to be accounted for. That’s why, in my earlier comment, I compared countries that have roughly similar HDI. US is 10 times worse than Canada and 50 times worse than UK.
Most of the gun related homicides in the US occur in cr1m1nal gangs in poor neighborhoods. They will get their guns no matter what.
The total number of gang homicides reported by respondents in the NYGS sample averaged nearly 2,000 annually from 2007 to 2012. During roughly the same time period (2007 to 2011), the FBI estimated, on average, more than 15,500 homicides across the United States (www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-1). These estimates suggest that gang-related homicides typically accounted for around 13 percent of all homicides annually.
What is their suggestion on the missing people?
Remember that each one, is still one in a million, to their family.
You did not mention the FBI margin of error either, I am sure for you it was just another number too. No worries.
To make this easier, ring a bell when you have point.
A closing thought on what is happening around us, is that we are all responsible for letting the economic powers ‘that be’ attempt to destroy nations and their sovereignty. The governments that assisted their efforts are now in the cross-hair of anyone with a truck. We need to clean this mess up with truth and justice but really transparent this time. No need for another government study it is a fact of life today.
It’s called performance art. The losers of the world have figured out a great way to make everybody look at them for 15 minutes.
The performance artist of the moment:
Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel
Fading fast:
Micah XavierJohnson
Forgotten:
Omar Mateen
Creativity… prepare for worse.
Destroy my country and I will come…
I don’t like to say this but JCH, you state that the performance artists are the losers, what do you make of the victims & families?
It can’t destroy a country. It has no power. It’s a fad. It will eventually fade.
That liberals are horrible people and they caused it to happen.
I had no idea.
I suspect the cr1m1nal gangs in Canada have guns, but I get the impression gang membership is relatively minor in Canada. But, instead of guns, cr1m1nals will find other weapons that are even worse than guns.
This is why the idea of outlawing guns in the US is so stupid. People cherry-pick their arguments while ignoring reality. Guns aren’t a problem for law abiding citizens in the US. And if you exclude homicides carried out by criminal gangs, guns become an insignificant cause of death compared to automobiles or a huge number of other causes.
From the article:
…
The Quebec Biker War (French: Guerre des motards; “Bikers’ War”) refers to the violent turf war that began in 1994 and continued until late 2002 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
The war began as the Hells Angels in Quebec began to make a push to establish a monopoly on street-level drug sales in the province. A number of drug dealers and crime families resisted and established groups such as the “Alliance to fight the Angels”.
The war resulted in the bombings of many establishments and murders on both sides. It has claimed more than 150 lives,[1] including some innocent bystanders such as Daniel Desrochers, an 11-year-old boy who was fatally injured by shrapnel as he was playing near a jeep that was blown up.[2]
…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Biker_war
The Hells Angels (should be Hell’s, but the group is not known for upholding literacy) is a California export. Maybe Canada should slap on an import tariff on it.
“I wonder why?”
One reason is because Canada is a country populated by milksops which continues to exist as a sovereign nation largely due to the umbrella of safety provided by your gun and freedom loving neighbor to the south. It would be taking its marching orders from Vladimir Putin if that protection were removed.
Another reason is Canada has a very small black population at just 2%. Over 50% of the homicides in the US are committed by just 12% of the population (black). Political correctness generally prohibits the mention of this sobering fact.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States#Homicide
Thanks for asking.
Remove that subset from US numbers and our rate of gun deaths falls to the middle of the pack of EU countries. But you are right, that’s politically incorrect to point out.
We also have a much higher rate of auto deaths than countries with few cars. We like and have lots of guns and cars. Nothing wrong with that. Guns are great. I love them and so do most of the people I know. We also have a large rural population that does lots of hunting. I am a pistol shooter.
From the article:
…
The Quebec Biker War (French: Guerre des motards; “Bikers’ War”) refers to the violent turf war that began in 1994 and continued until late 2002 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
The war began as the Hells Angels in Quebec began to make a push to establish a monopoly on street-level drug sales in the province. A number of drug dealers and crime families resisted and established groups such as the “Alliance to fight the Angels”.
The war resulted in the bombings of many establishments and murders on both sides. It has claimed more than 150 lives,[1] including some innocent bystanders such as Daniel Desrochers, an 11-year-old boy who was fatally injured by shrapnel as he was playing near a jeep that was blown up.[2]
…
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quebec_Biker_war
I suspect these people have guns, but obviously they also found an alternative that was much worse. I get the impression Canada doesn’t have as large a gang problem as the US.
John Robertson, Wonder why? Hockey. The Canadian murder rate is very close to that of the US but lazy Americans would rather shoot someone than bludgeon them to death or chase them down to stab them. I noticed that the homicide rate among aboriginals was about 5 time higher than the general public. Must be a glitch in the statistics unless they have obesity issues.
“I wonder why.” Do you? Or are you happy to assume that correlation equals causation?
How about Switzerland? According to your calculations, its murder rate should exceed the US. It, uh, doesn’t.
But as others pointed out, the murder rate in the US is largely caused not by guns but by a much larger and meaner collection of criminals. I.e., the Drug War. To paraphrase Milton Friedman, Swiss and Canadians who became American citizens don’t commit many murders either.
Could be it’s too fricking cold half the time.
Or it could be the percentage of racial minorities. Take a look at DoJ statistics and tell me certain numbers don’t stand out.
Man up and say it.
I posted this in tribute to the French nation at the time of the last atrocity. It grieves me to feel the need to post it again. A Quintessential French song celebrating their unique culture combined with wonderful scenery and Silly British Humour. Play loud and think of the French this morning and what they have had to endure over the last year
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9m9dtB6CT50
tonyb
Tonyb, I never put Mr Bean together with Charles Trenet…but it works.
As a redneck Francophile (admittedly, we’re not numerous), I have faith in France. Those who think the French don’t fight must have missed Verdun. Plus most of the rest of history.
And the collectivists/globalists haven’t always had their own way there. They got to write the history for a couple of centuries, but history is catching up with them.
http://www.inthevendee.com/vendee-wars/vendee-wars.html
Those who think the French don’t fight must have missed Verdun. Plus most of the rest of history.
http://qi.com/infocloud/france
French Military Victories
The ‘cheese-eating surrender monkeys’ tag immortalised by Homer Simpson, has contributed to a general sense of the French as cowardly losers. But the French have arguably the best military record in Europe. According to historian Niall Ferguson, of the 125 major European wars fought since 1495, the French have fought in 50, more than both Austria (47) and England (43). And they achieved an impressive overall batting average: out of a total of 168 battles fought since 387 bc, they have won 109, lost 49 and drawn 10.
The British rightly pride themselves on their naval superiority, but this was largely born out of the certain knowledge that we would never win a land war on the continent. Over its long history, the French army was usually the largest, best-equipped and most strategically innovative army in Europe. Most of the words used in modern warfare derive from French words, such as: army, artillery, captain, cavalry, charge, espionage, general, lieutenant, lance, marines, manoeuvre, military, mine, naval, parachute, pilot, platoon, regiment, soldier and trench.
At its maximum strength, under Napoleon, the French army achieved a feat that even the Nazis couldn’t repeat: they entered Moscow. Contemporary accounts of French military prowess were glowing with military historian and soldier General Sir William Napier (1785-1860) commenting: ‘It is well known with what gallantry the [French] officers lead and with what vehemence the troops follow’. British Coldstream guardsman, John Mills said that ‘their movements compared with ours are as mail coaches to dung carts. In all weathers and at all times they are accustomed to march, when our men would fall sick by hundreds.’
France surrendered to Germany at the outset of WWII. Nothing you can say will change that simple fact.
I was there during last winters carnival and more recently while Euro2016 was going on. On both occasions security was very strong and all passed without incidents, and I assume that it would have been so the last night too.
The local authority led by C. Estrosi is extremely well aware of possible terrorist attacks in the city, ensuring that there is adequate presence of police and soldiers on the streets. I don’t think that the last night attack could have been stopped without heavy military vehicles patrolling the Promenade, which is normally closed to the traffic for the number of popular events.
Hi Tony,
Voyez! Quel English humeur et shades of Jacques Tati.
Je t’aime. )
I like the French as well, especially the women. What you see is what you get and they don’t put up with crap from foreigners on their patch, especially when a war is on.
This French lady feels that lighting candles and playing “Imagine” on the piano might not be the answer…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=toQ23ujh-vA
Of course, she must be racist, extremist, Lennonist and every other “ist”.
You may not agree with her politics, at only 26 years of age, she is one of the most intelligent politicians in France. In the last regional elections she came close to winning second round of regional elections (Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur) and only thanks to the unholy alliance of conservatives, socialists and communists she was defeated.
Viva la belle France, viva la liberte.
Marion can really handle those bombastic French media luvvies with their patronising face-pulls and infantile gotchas.
Though much less touchy than her aunt, the young lady comes back fast and sharp in interviews, is ready with facts and doesn’t take a backward step or unnecessary breath…except to smile sweetly.
Doesn’t mean she or any of the family will be desirable or even effective national leaders. But now is definitely the time for some creative destruction, and Marion’s a wrecking ball.
She would need to shave her head and wear a burlap bag before I could possibly concentrate on what she’s saying.
“they don’t put up with crap from foreigners on their patch”
You must be joking.
Speaking of jokes… I have a French Army Rifle for sale. Never fired and only dropped one time.
DS:”She would need to shave her head and wear a burlap bag”
Kinky!
David Springer,
“Without the direct and indirect assistance of France, it is doubtful that Americans could have won the war for independence. From 1776 to 1783 France supplied the United States with millions of livres in cash and credit. France also committed 63 warships, 22,000 sailors and 12,000 soldiers to the war, and these forces suffered relatively heavy casualties as a result. The French national debt incurred during the war contributed to the fiscal crisis France experienced in the late 1780s, and that was one factor that brought on the French Revolution. In the end the French people paid a high price for helping America gain its independence.”
The US military doesn’t seem to be achieving much in places like Iraq or Afghanistan, and didn’t do too well in Somalia or Vietnam either.
Speaking of jokes – the F35? The US national debt? Want more?
Cheers.
The French and Australian people have a lot of empathy whereas certain high IQ types who tend to Aspergers syndrome and demonstrate very little empathy with humans or any other life form. This has been amply demonstrated on this blog.
A milksop for life club member, Peter Davies, complains. Shocking.
Mike Flynn,
Watch out there.
You start knocking around the US’s national mythology, regardless of how far it departs from reality, and you might get knocked around too.
I don’t think it would be understating the situation to say that most Americans are as patriotically correct as what left-wingers are politically and CAGW correct.
Willard, it’s Marion. Marion Maréchal-Le Pen, actually.
Marine is her aunt, and doesn’t look at all like Marion.
My mistake. Should have watched the video first.
I did not know Marion was a thing in the anglosphere. She’s certainly not in the francophony.
Please note that the transcript omits a few words:
I’d thread lightly in my adoration of young French woman who declares war to islamism and dogwhistles actions that her constituency must accept out of necessity.
It would seem we are both francophones, Willard. So I wonder how you conclude Marion is not “a thing” in the “francophony”. And I wonder why you made a fuss about “killing French” being omitted from the transcript…especially when the English words “which kills French people” do in fact appear in the transcript of the video.
But if Marion starts taking millions into a family “foundation” from arms manufacturers and Gulf States I’ll certainly tread lightly in my “adoration”. Especially if she is, shall we say, frequently unwell.
Auntie Marine is already depending on Russian banks. Of course, she’s just borrowing, while Bill Clinton cops straight donations from Uranium One, now Russian controlled. Then there’s that Moscow speech for which he got $500,000 from a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin and Uranium One.
Gotta watch these scamps!
> “which kills French people” do in fact appear in the transcript of the video.
Quite furtively. The video is 49 seconds long, and the subtitle only appears when Marion fades out and “Le Journal” appears. The previous frame, with the “are accomplices of that islamism” subtitle, lasts from 0:45 to the end of 0:48.
The “that islamism” is incorrect, BTW – she says “l’islamisme,” which targets the whole indefinite group.
I conclude that Marion is not “a thing” in the francophony because it just isn’t – it’s a local phenomenon, contrary to aunt Frexit, who recently came for a visit.
@jim2 | July 15, 2016 at 8:03 am | in moderation
France should make it a law that citizens there can’t have grenades and explosives … oh, wait!!
They need to outlaw high capacity trucks, for the children!!!!
Did you see the size of the magazine on that truck? No one needs a truck with that kind of firepower.
Seems the Clinton Email saga isn’t over after all?
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-charges-poll/
Note, though, that most respondents said that Clinton should have been indicted, and most respondents said that their opinion on this wouldn’t affect their vote even if it was for Clinton. Not all the same people, but wow.
They accept corruption as normal. It’s truly sad. Obviously we need to reboot Washington. Vote Trump.
VIDEO: Pennsylvania’s steel workers turning to Trump</b
http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/pennsylvanias-steel-workers-turning-to-trump/
http://i.imgur.com/1CEGvIS.png
My faith in the common man is undergoing rapid replenishment as we speak. Actually I think the problem with the common man has never been stupidity but has rather been apathy. Common sense is highly undervalued. That belief is what separates me from the majority of my intellectual peers more than anything else. My intellectual peers have little common sense and little ability to recognize or appreciate it in others. Obama is a prime example. And I use intellectual “peers” loosely. Obama’s a smart guy I’m sure with an IQ possibly in the 99th percentile. I’m in the 99.97th percentile so he’s still a slow thinker compared to me.
David, you must be joking. Your 99.97 percentile based on a single test result has error bands much greater than all IPCC predictions put together!
Many tests. What made you think it was just one?
Most people only find it necessary to have one IQ test, to join Mensa for example, as I did, many years ago. Remember that the bulk of the population have never sat such a test but there would be heaps of very bright people among them I feel sure.
They were not voluntary tests. You should stop making assumptions. At your age you’ve had plenty of opportunity to learn better.
Specifically PSAT in junior high school (won a NYS Regents scholarship for highest score), military GCT required for placement (got the highest score the regional recruiters had ever seen) then the SAT right before leaving the military 4 years later required for university enrollment.
Every one of them were identical in the percentile placement. Interestingly being away from school for 4 years in the military made no difference.
Both the SAT and military GCT are acceptable for admitance to high IQ societies but I’ve never join any club which would have me for a member. Several other tests over the years but those were all voluntary. I’m off the measured scale in math having gotten a perfect score on the SAT with plenty of time left over. This was the old SAT before the re-centering in the 1990’s.
High IQ is an interesting trait. The high IQ individual doesn’t necessarily know more or arrive at better conclusions. The most notable feature is the high IQ individual thinks faster. Sorts through patterns and possibilities at a high rate of speed to arrive at the correct answer sooner than others. That builds upon itself and translates to speed of learning which does eventually lead to a high store of knowledge. I was scoring at college level in vocabulary tests before I was ten years old. I corrected teachers when they made a mistake in class. The good ones loved having me and the poor ones were threatened. For most I was the brightest student they’d ever had or ever would have. It’s an interesting and novel experience being the smartest guy in a room full of adults when you’re just a child. I’m not sure I’d recommend it.
Point taken about making assumptions, David, many people do it, though, especially on blogs. Thanks for sharing your experiences as a child. I had mild aspergers as a child but soon grew out of it.
I never think much about my intelligence level but was able to compensate for not hearing anything to speak of by lip reading and quickly picking up as I went along as a child. As an adult I am more comfortable in the written word but still consider myself to be pretty easy to get along with in most social settings.
My score was not quite as high as yours but still high enough to be a nuisance if I wanted to be, but unlike you I never showed it to the outside world. I lived a lot in my mind and didn’t worry what people thought, because for the most part their POV was laughable and not worth arguing over.
I don’t have Aspergers. Not a hint of it. I grew up in a blue collar environment in New York. This is how we talk. Then I joined the Marine Corps where salty language is traditional. I felt right at home. If you don’t like it that’s too phucking bad. Not my problem.
VIDEO: Schieffer — CBS News Poll Showing Tie With Trump ‘Devastating’ For Clinton
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/07/14/schieffer-clinton-trump-poll/
http://i.imgur.com/IA1mkjF.png
http://i.imgur.com/PqHZs8E.png
He might lose a bit of that with his vice presidential pick. Hard to tell. Will definitely get the Republican party to consolidate behind him though. It was a tough call. Newt is brilliant in almost any measure political or otherwise, a great orator, but is a bit of a loose cannon and prone to thinking way outside the box. Given Trump’s own loose cannon nature I guess the decision was based on the premise “there can be too much of a good thing”. One loose canon is enough. I ceased second-guessing Trump some months ago. And that’s based on the premise “don’t argue with success”.
Gallagher: Team Clinton Has Outspent Trump 40-1 in Swing States and Is Only Tied
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/14/gallagher_team_clinton_has_outspent_trump_40-1_in_swing_states_and_is_only_tied.html
Incredible as it seems Trump is going to win in a landslide. He’s got common sense, street smarts, top shelf business education, old school upbringing starting before he could walk by a father in the construction business, not afraid to say what he thinks in language the average Joe Blow can understand, genuine love for America and American culture, repulsed by progressive stupidity and multi-culturalism, not a right-wing evangelical Christian nutcase, not a war-monger, has so much wealth already he can’t be bought, raised several children who are smart and successful… the list of things that are just what our country needs goes on and on. If it weren’t for the tiny hands he’d have no flaws!
Running a successful presidential campaign on a comparatively tiny budget is exactly what we need in a president. Knows how to get the most bang for the buck. Will cut wasteful spending in Washington like a scythe through wheat if he has a mandate and popular support to do it.
I’m curious about those who support Hillary. Why? I can’t think of a single redeeming feature. That can’t be right. She has to have some good qualities, qualifications, etc.
If you believe that US federal government is corrupt and purchased by whatever special interests pony up the most money, and you have no real problem with that, then Hillary has by far the most experience at it. Trump didn’t nickname her “Cr00ked Hillary” for no good reason. She’s as bent as bent gets.
Her looks?
The gang stats are notoriously unreliable, I mean how many gang members fill out questionnaires asking how many murders by fire arm did you commit this year? Blacks comprise 12% of the population in the US. On guns in the US, here is the main point:
…
Most troubling, though, was the rate difference between ethnicities: firearm-related fatality rates for African-Americans were twice as high as the reported rates for Caucasians.
…
http://www.newsweek.com/gun-deaths-us-twice-high-among-african-americans-caucasians-273071
Yeah along with the fact that blacks commit homicide at 8 times the rate of whites… ironically their victims are 8 times as likely to be black. We need to be candid about the problem before we can solve. Inner city black culture needs to be systematically disassembled by any means necessary for the good of everyone and none more so than inner city blacks who are their own worst enemy.
“any means necessary”. Please. Do tell us more.
What are you Danny, 12, or is it just that you are a twit.
My chronological age includes 12. Twit at times, sure. But here, in this context, I’m much more than the two choices you offered.
Why do you have such an issue with my challenges to those who offer unsubstantiated assertions? (This is a much better question than yours by the way). Arm waving elsewhere is frowned upon. Yet gains so much acceptance in these political threads as much from you as any.
It’s not a contest Danny, and what you call challenges often appear to be little more than you trying to show us how bright you are.
You seem bent on becoming the new Josh.
Tim,
This is a political forum, not a science forum. I’m not all about echo chambers. Many have expressed faith based decision making. This is not in my comfort zone. Many have made cases for Trump yet those cases are based on little in the policy realm. The amazing part to me is watching the science oriented discussions which rail on the ‘faith based’ orientation of those more climate concerned yet here, when I do exactly that, you wish to castigate me for doing so. So Tim, next time someone goes against someone who professes their ‘faith’ in the CAGW I’ll be looking for you to call them on it.
That in and of itself is interesting. Dontcha think?
A double standard is not a good look.
Hey Danny, I’ll bite. Channeling my British ancestors I’m thinking penal colonies might work. Surely we can purchase some sh*t-hole country in Africa and turn it into a giant prison. Hire locals to run it. It will save us the astounding cost of prisons here in the states and make recidivism someone else’s problem since few of the inmates will have the means to get back to the hood upon release.
Or we could try things like education and jobs programs that require relocation out of the inner city and contract forbidding a return. Combine that with draconian law enforcement and instead of banning soft drinks served in large cups and added salt by restaurants ban fried chicken and watermelon.
Hmm. He’s not Hillary. Vote this way: http://www.gq.com/story/gary-johnson-2016-presidential-interview#
The truth about Billary supporters is that a significant number of them consider the law to be an inconvenient nuisance. They just don’t care if Billary is a cr1m1nal, in fact a significant number are cr1m1nals themselves.
From the article:
…
A Washington Post/ABC News poll, released Monday, found that 56% of American adults disapprove of the FBI’s decision, while 35% said they approved. But a majority — 58% — also said the issue would not affect their vote in the 2016 presidential election.
…
http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/11/politics/hillary-clinton-fbi-charges-poll/
Substituting one letter for another here and there does wonders for keeping posts out of moderation, huh? A famil1ar convention for me. ;-)
From the article:
…
Neither former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton nor President Barack Obama mentioned “Islam” or “radical Islam” in their responses to the Nice terror attack on Thursday.
…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/15/nice-neither-hillary-clinton-barack-obama-mention-islam/
Yes despite the driver shouting “allahu akbar” (translated to english from raghead: allah is great) they weren’t sure if it was related to Islam or not.
/sarc
How Billary compares to other cr1m1nals:
http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/12/hillary-managed-her-emails-like-criminals-ive-known/
@jim2 | July 15, 2016 at 11:42 am | in moderation
How Billary compares to other cr1m1nals:
http://bit.ly/29AAIWT
From the article:
A few years ago I was running a company and we caught a couple of people embezzling. A top tech guy with complete access to our computer system got in cahoots with the financial controller. An affair was involved. Federal prosecutors will tell you this kind of nasty collusion is rampant these days. They were systematically looting our cash flow, and, given their respective positions, able to cover their tracks. When they found out I was bringing in more financial oversight (the tech guy had tapped into my email) they knew the jig was up.
If You’re Going to Commit a Crime, Destroy the Evidence
Unknown to anyone, they began destroying evidence as fast as they could. They ordered a shredder (yes, at company expense) and had it shipped to the controller’s apartment, where they furiously disintegrated satchels full of documents they had spirited from the office: financial records, expense reports, receipts—everything incriminating. The tech guy, a long-term, highly trusted employee, wiped everything, including backups.
I am curious– who really believes the Left give 2 schitts about what happens in France? If Left really believes CO2 is the big problem and the future of Earth hangs in the balance, shouldn’t Left want America to be more like France– e.g., use nuclear power plants to generate 86% of our power instead of 20%? The Left, of course, only hates it that America has nuclear power and the only reason the Left pretends to care what happens in France is because France despises the US. All of the Eurocommies hate America.
The Greenies across the Pond want France to use less nuclear and more whirlygigs and solar panels. They truly are id10ts.
Waggy
After the leftwards turn of the US in recent years I am not sure that much of Europe is too much different to America any longer. Euro commies? No. euro socialists, yes, sometimes
Tonyb
Tony
What evidence do you use to quantify a leftward turn in the U.S.?
Bernie Sanders?
tonyb
One, losing candidate tells you that the whole country has shifted leftward?
What shift the bevy of R candidates that were all to the right of Romney?
Joshua | July 15, 2016 at 5:21 pm |
J0shua | July 15, 2016 at 5:21 pm |
climatereason | July 15, 2016 at 3:09 pm | Reply
Waggy
“After the
leftwardslefttards turn of the US”Fixed that for ya!
From the article:
…
The chief police witness in Parliament said that an investigating officer, tears streaming down his face, rushed out of the Bataclan and vomited in front of him just after seeing the disfigured bodies.
According to this testimony, Wahhabist killers apparently gouged out eyes, castrated victims, and shoved their testicles in their mouths. They may also have disemboweled some poor souls. Women were stabbed in the genitals – and the torture was, victims told police, filmed for Daesh or Islamic State propaganda. For that reason, medics did not release the bodies of torture victims to the families, investigators said.
…
http://heatst.com/uk/exclusive-france-suppressed-news-of-gruesome-torture-at-bataclan-massacre/
Jim2
That link is very disturbing, I had not even heard rumours that this allegedlyhappendedd. I was prepared to dismiss it but then I saw the author was Louise mensch. She was formerly a Tory mp and whilst that in itself does not mean the story is correct, it does lend an element of credibility.
Surely if it were true other media would have reported it?
Tonyb
Like anything on the internet, it’s best to find a second or third source. I haven’t, but if this is true, it is disturbing; not that Nice wasn’t.
Looks like it was reported in 2015:
https://themuslimissue.wordpress.com/2015/11/18/paris-muslims-tortured-dismembered-and-slit-the-stomachs-of-victims-at-bataclan-theatre/
http://www.caintv.com/bataclan-terrorists-tortured-c
How is a presidential discussion possible in the absence of presidential-caliber candidates?
…what is an example of a presidential-caliber candidate and does your example survive the reality test of getting votes?
John is looking for The True Scotsman.
Ah yezzz, and, there’s the rub: no true Scotsman would run for office…
True that :)
At least Donald Trump celebrated Brexit in Scotland!
Yes I’m curious too. What do you imagine is presidential-caliber?
Both candidates are qualified being they are over 35 years of age, native born Americans, and having been residents longer than 14 years.
I could’ve picked a better president than Obama by throwing a dart while blindfolded at a list of Houston dock workers. Maybe not San Francisco dock workers though, if you get my drift.
Best thing about the linked article:
Fyi– “Psychoticism is a personality pattern typified by aggressiveness and interpersonal hostility. High levels of this trait were believed by Eysenck to be linked to increased vulnerability to psychosis such as schizophrenia.” ~wiki
Now we know what it is that drives the Left to eschew the scientific method, preferring instead to create a make-believe world where CO2 is a poison that causes runaway global warming and then indulge in the fiction of man-caused climate catastrophism.
http://static.infowars.com/politicalsidebarimage/bernie-hillary1.jpg
It is democratic socialite-ism
The Turkish military +10.
I wish them luck taking Turkey back from Obama’s islamic puppet gov’t.
Climate change department closed by Theresa May in ‘plain stupid’ and ‘deeply worrying’ move
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change-department-killed-off-by-theresa-may-in-plain-stupid-and-deeply-worrying-move-a7137166.html
http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/fp_thumb/images/user3303/imageroot/20160715_ban.jpg
Has the Democratic Party evolved into a national version of Tammany Hall? I can see several similarities: the tolerance of corruption, the loosening of immigration laws to develop loyalty from specific ethnic/religious groups, the dolling out of patronage benefits (aka welfare) to their loyal supporters, and the fomenting of racial/political violence. It took forever to get rid of Tammany Hall’s grip on the boroughs of New York–it seems that eventually their leaders just became too corrupt to be tolerated. Reformers from within the Democratic Party eventually finished them off, but, sadly, I see no desire for reform from within the current Democratic Party.,
In the meantime, let’s just hope that the violence in Cleveland next week does not surpass the 1863 draft riots.
+1
Nope.
It was always that way.
If you doubt, take a look at the details around the nomination of John Kennedy. Consider who his father was.
The two Americans, father and son killed in the Nice terrorist attack, live just a few miles from me on the same small lake. I can’t imagine the wife and other two children flying home with the bodies.
Obama then comes on TV today and talks about everyone just needing to hold hands and be nice to each other. He’s a starry-eyed imbecile. A typical libtard in other words. This is the result of eight years of failed leadership by the so-called leader of the free world and policies that do not work. Obama chickens are coming home to roost.
Vote Trump now more than ever.
David,
Too much kool-aid is bad for ya.
What did Trump say just a few days ago?: “This is a time, perhaps more than ever, for strong leadership, love and compassion. We will pull through these tragedies.”
Guess he shoulda left out the love and compassion part, huh?
Quit being a putz Danny.
How in the world, after David chose to castigate Obama for saying much the same as Trump did just a few days ago so I reminded him of same, does that make me a putz?
Call out David for the way he portrayed things or consider stopping ‘putzing’ yourself. Double standards are not a good look.
Danny Thomas | July 15, 2016 at 7:28 pm | Reply
“Too much kool-aid is bad for ya.”
Sounds reasonable. Voice of experience talking?
Trump didn’t actually say that. It was a press release. I sincerely doubt he wrote it either. It doesn’t sound like something he’d say.
https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-statement
Regardless, the context for love and compassion wasn’t reaching out with love and compassion towards terrorists. Duh.
Trump didn’t actually say that? Hmm. Someone oughta tell his campaign and web site admin. It kinda says ‘Donald J. Trump Statement’. Maybe it’s a problem with the reporting.
Surely you don’t think Obama was reaching out with a hug to terrorists. Maybe you did and your ‘Duh’ was mislocated.
Springer is Springer. Learn to read between the lines instead of playing hall monitor.
TimG56,
Yes indeed he is. But reading between the lines I’ve been taught here, is fraught with potential issues.
From my perspective, I’ve asked for specifics and received little. It’s entertaining that you’ll defend his approach and deny me mine. Why might that be? Could there be a ‘confirmational bias’ in play? You find me ‘foolish’ (Twit, was your word choice) for wanting to nail down the ‘real’ Trump before I decide for whom to vote.
Clinton has too many warts to support outright. Trump is more of an unknown. Asking to know more about the unknown is opposite of foolishness (unless you are all about the big C in CAGW….are you?). And you know that.
“Surely you don’t think Obama was reaching out with hugs to terrorists?”
You mean the guy who keeps releasing terrorists from Gitmo?
Speaking of changing subjects:
“A report from the Director of National Intelligence says, as of July 15, 2015, that 17.9 percent, or 117 of all 653 detainees released from Guantanamo since it opened in 2002, have been confirmed of reengaging in terrorist activities. Another 79 detainees, or 12.1 percent, are suspected of having returned to terrorist activities based on “plausible but unverified or single-source reporting.”
That’s 30 percent, as Christie said. But it spans two presidents, not just the current one as the ad implies. Christie is heard in the ad saying “30 percent of the people the president has released from Guantanamo.”
How many of the detainees released under Obama have returned to terrorist activities?
The September 2015 national intelligence report said that 4.9 percent, or six of the 121 detainees released since Jan. 22, 2009, two days after Obama was sworn into office, have been “confirmed of reengaging” in terrorist activities, and another 4.9 percent are “suspected of reengaging.” That’s a total of nearly 10 percent.
On the other hand, almost 35 percent or 184 of the 532 detainees released under President George W. Bush have been confirmed or are suspected of returning to terrorist activities.”
Try again Tim. Obama, while maybe not the finest president ever is not the sole blame for all the evils in the world. Try some facts and stop with the unsupported assertions which are in fact in error.
http://www.factcheck.org/2016/01/christie-pac-wrong-about-gitmo/
and the actual source: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/GTMO%20Sept_2015.pdf
How many have been ‘hugged’ by a drone under Obama? Some say as many as 30,000. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/07/president-obama-likes-to-brag-about-the-terrorists-he-has-taken-out-how-many-is-that-exactly/
And bringing this back to the conversation at hand, how does Obama’s use of ‘love and compassion’ (not directed towards terrorists) not compare with Trump’s use of same (also, not directed towards terrorists).
I remind you again that a double standard is not a good look.
Sheesh.
You’ve already decided you won’t vote for Trump, Danny. Stop pretending otherwise by asking for more policy specifics. It’s like if I was saying I might donate money to #BlackLivesMatter if they would be more specific about their goals. Duh.
David,
Well then you know more than I do as I’ve not decided for whom I’ll vote.
Look, I’ve stated too many times I’m an Independent. Socially liberal, fiscally pretty darn conservative.
Making the case for Hillary’s qualifications (and they are IMO unquestionable both good and bad) is just a sheet of paper and a pro/con column.
I don’t have the same kind of information about Trump, for who your bromance is abundantly clear. What I have isn’t any more/less attractive than Hillary (but he’s more entertaining). I think I could live with Kasich. I’d like a Jon Huntsman type guy if I could choose.
Stop with the crystal ball nonsense. You have no idea.
And maybe a well off person such as yourself could prove an fine example of ‘reaching across the aisle’, as it were. Please do donate. It might come across as an olive branch no matter which ‘side’ one is on.
Get a clue, Danny.
http://www.nowtheendbegins.com/40-mind-blowing-quotes-barack-hussein-obama-islam-christianity/
You’re in denial. Barry Soetoro has consistently defended Islam since his childhood in Indonesia where he was indoctrinated.
“Barry Soetoro has consistently defended Islam since his childhood in Indonesia where he was indoctrinated.”
You do realize there is some percentage, 1% I see, who are Islamic in the U.S. Not a high percentage but some 3.3 million real live people.
Which ‘group’ should he not defend?
Oh, and from the first ‘outrageous quote’: (context anyone?)
“The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. ”
See ‘the future’ and wonder why the Islam segment was selected. Cherries?
“The future must not belong to those who target Coptic Christians in Egypt — it must be claimed by those in Tahrir Square who chanted, “Muslims, Christians, we are one.” The future must not belong to those who bully women — it must be shaped by girls who go to school, and those who stand for a world where our daughters can live their dreams just like our sons. (Applause.)
The future must not belong to those corrupt few who steal a country’s resources — it must be won by the students and entrepreneurs, the workers and business owners who seek a broader prosperity for all people. Those are the women and men that America stands with; theirs is the vision we will support.
The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam. But to be credible, those who condemn that slander must also condemn the hate we see in the images of Jesus Christ that are desecrated, or churches that are destroyed, or the Holocaust that is denied. (Applause.)” https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-un-general-assembly
Shocking news. This morning’s Baton Rouge cop killer was a former Nation of Islam member. Maybe he didn’t pay his dues or something and got kicked out of the club. His marksmanship however is courtesy of the United States Marine Corps. You really have to be careful with pissed off jarheads…
Danny Thomas | July 17, 2016 at 11:10 pm |
“You do realize there is some percentage, 1% I see, who are Islamic in the U.S. Not a high percentage but some 3.3 million real live people.”
“Which ‘group’ should he not defend?”
Muslims. Every last goddamn one of them. They’re free to practice it so long as they break no laws and the rest of us are free to hate it for the misogynistic intolerant phucked up cancer on the face of creation that it really is.
Got it?
I am SO sick and tired of being told I have to be tolerant of all religious beliefs like they’re all equal and good. Some are just plain f*cked up. Islam is one of those. Positive atheism is at least as harmful and is more widely practiced. The problem with it is there’s no absolute moral authority. No guiding force and ultimately no judgment or accountability other than peers. Muslims at least have an absolute moral authority that transcends peers. The problem is that the morals are messed up and incompatible with a western Christian democracy. Like or lump it the US is a Christian nation and I wouldn’t have it any other way. I’m not a practicing Christian myself but I can sort out the good from the bad in belief systems and Christianity demonstrably produces a culture that works well all things considered. Countries where the Protestant reformation took hold have produced the highest living standards in the world today. Never argue with success.
Danny
This is not a lecture, just some self examination and reflections on your comment.
“Look, I’ve stated too many times I’m an Independent. Socially liberal, fiscally pretty darn conservative.”
I, too, am socially liberal and fiscally pretty darn conservative. But I am certainly not Independent. I cannot conceive of being independent any more I don’t even know what socially liberal means any longer. What court rulings, Federal, state or local laws or institutional reforms need to be enacted that have’t been to reflect liberal values? That was not the case 60 years ago. But now what public policy changes should a Liberal be pushing for today? I don’t know. We have spent over $50 Trillion since the LBJ Great Society began and have we progressed as a civilized society? Recent events make me wonder. The early years of my college years were spent studying the social sciences in the early 1960s, with hopes of being a social worker or psychologist. How could anyone at that point in our history and attuned to the awakening of the Civil Rights era not be a bona fide Liberal. And so I was.
I was stationed in the South while in the Army in 1967 and spent a good deal of time in a small town in South Carolina. Being from the North, I was aghast at a “Negro” walking off the sidewalk into the street as he approached me. I was revulsed seeing the “colored” drinking fountains and the sign on the local theater with a sign “colored up stairs” I delighted at their squealing delight when the blacks in the balcony reacted to Sydney Poitier slapping the white plantation owner in “In the Heat of the Night”. I said to myself “Right On”. How could there still be this stuff going on, I asked myself. After all LBJ got all that wonderful legislation through. You mean the South hasn’t changed in those 2 years? Gee, apparently legislation and the best of intentions don’t always change things overnight.
Now what do Liberals stand for? Censoring free speech with ad hominem attacks resembling tactics in North Korea. Being the thought police with attacks of racism, homophobe, xenophobe and misogynist against anyone having a different public policy proscription than the most virulent Liberal view. Use of those words have driven them into being meaningless. Liberal today means being for spending Billions more each year without even pausing to wonder about the efficacy of all the social program spending. If you are against increased spending for social programs, apparently you are a racist. Thus is the simpleton kind of thinking.
Not all solutions originate in DC. Cultural evolution comes at glacial speed.
I no longer buy into this utopian belief in the perfectibility of the human species. In our core we are little different than we were thousands of years ago. Enacting more so called “progressive legislation” is not going to change that.
Cerescokid,
Thank you.
Hopefully, from this social liberal, you’ve not witnessed “Being the thought police with attacks of racism, homophobe, xenophobe and misogynist against anyone having a different public policy proscription than the most virulent Liberal view.” If so, a lecture is due to me.
On one of these threads I’d posted something similar to: http://qpolitical.com/north-carolinas-new-welfare-rules-are-causing-a-stir-across-america/
which I support to some extent. If my money goes to ‘assist’ another it seems reasonable to ask for them to participate in the process. I’m a believer in a leg up and not a hand out (with caveats, of course).
“Enacting more so called “progressive legislation” is not going to change that.” What we need is removal of the label ‘progressive’ as it carries connotations. ‘Common sense’ would be an improvement.
The mix of welfare with work (not welfare to work) is a classic representation of how I perceive myself. I don’t give a buck to the guy with the cardboard sign on the roadside who brings home $60-$70k tax free in an all cash business, but I do support alternates.
http://www.ibtimes.com/how-much-do-panhandlers-make-new-york-city-homeless-man-earns-200-hour-sitting-2181312
Much of my issue with the Trump candidacy (from where this all leads) is I have no idea of his preferences. Yet I do see (of course unverified as we don’t have returns) that he’s not adverse to utilizing ‘the system’ himself. It’s an opinion piece: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/donald-trump-the-welfare-king/2016/05/23/154310f4-2121-11e6-aa84-42391ba52c91_story.html
And to be clear, it’s fine for him to do so. We use the tools we’re provided and make them work for us as best we can. Self interest and good business.
I learn from you guys all the time. Don’t always agree (obviously) but I read. And that leads me to look further.
Danny
Being the thought police. No, I’ve never seen anything from you indicating you are part of the thought police. I was taking myself on my journey from Liberal then pausing shortly at independent to being a conservative not able to vote Democratic no matter who the Republican candidate is.
I’m an arithmetic conservative. If the numbers don’t work, they don’t work. The growth of Debt is far worse than we had post WWII and the outlook for GDP being able to handle the Debt is dire. The call by Liberals to increase taxes on the rich as a way to reduce the annual deficit is a pipe dream. Having millionaires pay the same effective tax rate as they did when the top marginal tax raate was 91% would reduce the deficit by only 25%.
I also find Trump’s plan to grow the economy enough to address the Debt wishful thinking. I agree with him that growing the economy is the best way to reduce the Debt. IF we could grow the economy. I just think we have approached a new phase in global economic growth when nothing can produce the level of real GDP growth that we experienced in the 20th century.
How do you distinguish between “Debt” and “money”?
AK
The debt service costs are virtually the same as 20 years ago even though Debt Held by the Public has gone from $3 trillion to $14 trillion. Zero interest rate policies are masking the potential impact on the budget. When, not if interest rates normalize, there will be a race to have growth in the economy and tax revenue outpace growth of interest payments. If we return to 20th century real growth levels then no problem. I’m not convinced the productivity record back then was not a one off experience. Japan uses 40% of their tax revenue to pay interest costs of their debt. Money that could be used more efficiently by the private sector or by government for other purposes.
Poll: Nearly half of Sanders’s millennial supporters would vote third-party
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/287708-poll-nearly-half-of-sanders-millennial-supporters-would
My vote doesn’t matter so I should probably just write in my own name.
The sad thing is that if you could work that concept into a Pokeman game, they would do it.
Democrats ‘freaked out’ about polls in meeting with Clinton
http://thehill.com/homenews/house/287845-democrats-freaked-out-about-polls-in-meeting-with-clinton
And they should be. Interestingly, many who say they’ll vote for Clinton is because she’s ‘not Trump’.
And a lot of people in the gutted mid-section of the country will vote for Trump because he’s “not Dimowit.”
http://blogs.news.com.au/images/uploads/bleaknice22.jpg
From the article:
…
The 28th Annual National Survey of Police Chiefs shows that “76 percent” of respondents believe armed citizens reduce violent crime.
An even higher percentage–nearly 88–stated their conviction that “any vetted citizen” should be able to purchase a gun “for sport or self-defense.”
According to the survey, nearly “87 percent” of police chiefs support national reciprocity of concealed carry permits. National reciprocity would treat concealed carry permits like a driver’s license, making the concealed carry permit of any state valid in every state. This would do away the headaches law-abiding citizens get by trying to remember which states recognize their permit and which do not. It would also make life easier for patrol officers during a traffic stop by giving them a more unified set of permit rules to remember.
…
http://www.breitbart.com/2nd-amendment/2016/07/15/survey-police-chiefs-76-percent-say-armed-citizens-help-cops-fight-crime/
I think their new logo is supposed to represent what they want to do to America.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-logo-criticized_us_57891d63e4b0867123e115a0?section=
Devoted to one of the world’s most beautiful cities and its kind and gentle people, I have been visiting for nearly half a century.
https://youtu.be/iX5hisr5KwY
Vuk
We intend to visit Nice this Autumn in order to show solidarity with the French. Its many years since we were last there-transiting through the place on our honeymoon in Corsica some 35 years ago.
Tonyb
Nice combines the best of the French and Italian culture and cuisine (except for the local ‘socca’, best avoided). Nice is the Garibaldi’s birth place and it was ruled by the dukes of Savoy before they became kings of Italy. Referendum to move from Italy to France is surrounded by a bit of controversy since Garibaldi claimed that the vote was rigged by the French.
The current mayor Christian Estrosi (of Italian origin, recently elected as the president of the Provence-Alpes-Côte d’Azur region) has done lot for the city during his time in the office. As a republican, he was overruled on a number of controversial matters by the socialists from Paris.
Young Marion Maréchal-Le Pen (26 year old, highly intelligent granddaughter of the old and a now senile Jean-Marie Le Pen) was a formidable NF challenger for the post of the regional president.
French minister: Nice killer radicalized ‘very quickly’
https://www.mail.com/int/news/europe/4483284-french-minister-nice-killer-radicalized-very-quick.html#.1258-stage-hero1-1
Trump’s Expected VP: Governor Who Defied Obama’s Climate Agenda
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp
hpf=1&a_id=145673&utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2016-07-15&utm_content=&utm_campaign=feature_2
Clinton’s own idea to fight terrorists would leave her out:
“Clinton proposed an “intelligence surge” as one way to fight the radical jihadists.”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/14/clinton_on_nice_we_need_to_launch_an_intelligence_surge_this_is_a_war_against_radical_jihadist_groups.html
The latest CBS poll showed national security and terrorism to be the second most salient issue on voters’ minds (1 in 5), right behind the economy and jobs (1 in 4).
And on the issue of national security and terrorism, it showed them to be in a dead heat, tied 46-46 percent.
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/clinton-trump-poll-lead/2016/07/14/id/738567/
Muhammad 101:
…
U.S. anti-jihad agencies have jailed or arrested 101 men since 2001 who are named for Muhammad
…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/15/hold-anti-terror-agencies-have-jailed-arrested-101-muhammads-since-911/
Delegate Donald:
https://twitter.com/nbcsandiego/status/750892353003655169
I hate to break the bad news to you, Willard, but the Bush-Romney-Bill Kristol wing of the Republican Party lost:
Heck, it didn’t even score enough votes to put a minority report on the agenda.
> I hate […]
Your hate is duly noted, Glenn.
Some more news on Delegate Donald has yet to overturn the decision of federal judges, this time five days later:
http://www.richmond.com/news/virginia/article_d98ac087-7c75-5d60-9eb0-3b2b17dcbc16.html
While we turn it to lawyers, some more on the Donald Squad:
https://twitter.com/NARAL/status/754053671822950400
I hate to break it to you Willard but the goal is to get the current establishment on both sides out of Washington. Or at least make examples of enough of them that the rest get with the program.
Say wasn’t it hilarious how Pence leaked [the news of VP choice] where he shouldn’t have like a puppy that hasn’t been house trained yet? Then Trump put out a campaign logo that looks like Trump letting Pence have it where the sun doesn’t shine? Boys will be boys. Nobody, absolutely nobody, would have approved that logo without seeing the symbology. Hilarious. It lasted less than 24 hours. Possibly less time than the Star of David.
The Star of David by the way was a secret message for Hillary that Trump’s real top advisors are his Jewish daughter and Jewish son-in-law. There goes the banking industry, Hollywood, and Florida among other things. And don’t forget Jews are the original Muslim haters. They invented it.
Don’t take the bait David (warning, commentary follows):
“Or at least make examples of enough of them that the rest get with the program.”
Now, if we only knew that ‘the program’ is.
I know what the program is. I tried to spoon feed it to you but you kept making faces and spitting it out. Not my problem.
The Trump party (formally GOP) has an interesting political platform:
Source, Time Magazine story, 7/11/16.
Among the provisions is an assessment that internet pornography is a “public health crisis.”
“Pornography, with his harmful effects, especially on children, has become a public health crisis that is destroying the life of millions. We encourage states to continue to fight this public menace and pledge our commitment to children’s safety and wellbeing,” the amendment stated.
An amendment offered by the Family Research Council’s Tony Perkins in the subcommittee on healthcare, education, and crime offered support for the controversial practice of “conversion therapy” for children who identify as LGBT.
“We support the right of parents to determine the proper treatment or therapy, for their minor children,” the amendment said. Perkins originally drafted a more explicit embrace of the practice, but amended the text after consultations with top RNC officials. Perkins’ amendment, which passed the subcommittee and subsequently the full committee.
Observations:
If we can figure out how to remove porn from the internet why not other types of content like Islam or Mormonism? Beginning with the assumption that anyone producing or consuming Porn is a social deviant (like drug addicts and LGBT people) there will be at least 1/2 the citizens that must be be identified from the general population. Will it be another War on Drugs boondoggle? Will they try to implement a mass conversion therapy program?
It seems the two should be related. Somebody should do some scientific research to perfect this conversion therapy technology, it could come in handy for other social diseases like having the wrong ideology.
It’s not Trump, one must recall, who signed DOMA.
That was Bill Clinton.
And while there are certainly a large number of LGBTs who walk in lockstep with the Democratic Party, that trait is not universal. There are still a handful — maybe 25% — who will vote Republican, and who are skeptical of the “historical truths” proclaimed by the Clinton Ministry of Truth:
I’m Pro conversion therapy technology and I hope you are too Glenn. Please, for your own safety and the future of our children support this important government initiative.
Conversion therapy could help a lot of people if it works. Why not let individuals decide if they want to try it or not? What if there were assh0le conversion therapy. You’d probably want people like me to have it available, right, in the unlikely event I find myself not wanting to be an assh0le anymore? It’s not easy being a dick in our society. I’m looked down upon, people don’t want me around, and so forth and so on. I’m persecuted. You probably think I’m an assh0le by choice. If it were a choice who would make it and why? So imagine it isn’t a choice but something I can’t change. Assh0les are born that way. If an LGBT person can be born that way and others should accept them why can’t assh0les find the same public support? It’s cruel, unfair world.
There are at least a couple of places where Trump and Pence part ways.
One is on trade:
Another is LGBT issues:
Trump has said that marriage is between a man and a woman, but according to the New York Times, he has “nurtured long friendships with gay people, employed gay workers in prominent positions, and moved with ease in industries where gays have long exerted influence, like entertainment.”
Trump also said in an NBC interview that he opposed North Carolina’s ban on individuals using public bathrooms that do not correspond to their biological sex.
Pence has been more hard-nosed on LGBT rights. In 2015, he signed a “religious freedom” bill in Indiana that critics argued would have allowed businesses to refuse service to LGBT people on the basis of religious freedom. After facing backlash, Pence signed an amended version into law.
From the article:
…
“But who are millennials?” she said. “Now we are finding out that they are living with their parents.”
“They don’t have the initiative to go out and find a little apartment and grow a tomato plant on the terrace,” said Stewart, who is 74 and still working full-time.
“I understand the plight of younger people,” she said. “The economic circumstances out there are very grim.”
“But you have to work for it,” said Stewart. “You have to strive for it. You have to go after it.”
Stewart further said, “I got married at 19 and I immediately got an apartment and I fixed it up. I was very proud of everything I did. I got the furniture at auctions for pennies. Beautiful furniture. My apartments were lovely and homey and comfortable.”
…
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/michael-w-chapman/200-million-martha-stewart-millennials-you-have-work-it-you-have-go-after-it
What? No trophies (all equal) just for participation? Ya gotta work for it?
Before we get all warm and fuzzy, the next statement is who’s initially responsible the students or the teachers? I blame the teachers.
Y’all heard sayings like 60 is the new 40 giving which gives a nod to modern 60 year-olds being as healthy as yesteryear’s 40 year-olds.
Well so far the way I have it figured is that 30 is the new 20 when it comes to becoming a self-supporting adult. Nothing to be worried about these kids will likely live to an average age over 90. They have an easy extra ten years of life on the front end to spend at home with their loving baby boomer parents.
At some point we all need to pull the plug on our IT guy.
In Mexico they call them generaton NiNi:
http://img.desmotivaciones.es/201106/fotnot_generacion_ninii.jpg
For those from the younger generation, they are NiNis by choice. But for older folks, given the dire state of the Mexican economy, they are NiNis because they were forced out of the labor force. It’s the worst of all worlds.
http://www.lacronica.net/imagenes/fotosdeldia/27419_la_situacion_de_los__ninis__ha_dado_pie_a_muchas_controversias__incluso_con_humor_.jpg
Just out. LA Times Poll has Trump ahead of Hillary 43:40
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-usc-lat-tracking-poll-20160705-snap-story.html
Interesting. Along with the CBS/NYT poll that’s both the two biggest libtard rags in the nation with Trump ahead or tied respectively. That’s gotta hurt.
And Hillary has outspent Trump in campaign advertising by a factor of 40 so far. What then happens when The Donald’s machine starts rolling? It’s gonna be a slaughter.
The Democrats are the ones that need to pull a fast-one at the convention and somehow replace Hillary. The Establishment that let her be the nominee by seniority rather than quality phucked up big-time. That bitch’s baggage has baggage.
David Springer: LA Times Poll has Trump ahead of Hillary 43:40
In 1973 Republican Howard Baker of the Senate Watergate Committee asked this question: “What did the President know and when did he know it?”.
Now an equally serious question is “What did the Secretary of State know and when did she know it?” The true answer is potentially as serious to H. Clinton’s public support as the true answer to Baker’s question proved serious to Nixon’s public support. As with Clinton (at least so far) party politics practiced by Republicans in power protected Nixon from indictment and trial. As with Clinton (at least so far) Nixon admitted (somewhat belatedly) to a “mistake”, when the details supported an indictment. Clinton looks as guilty of a crime to me now as Nixon looked guilty of a crime to me back then. Also like the case of Nixon, Clinton has been spared the ordeal of testifying under oath and for the record. I am a little surprised by liberal friends of mine from that era, who agreed that Nixon had committed a crime and not just a “mistake”, who are giving Clinton a pass on this.
I am hoping that the poll results come from the details of the email debacle sinking into more and more of the public consciousness. AG Lynch may believe that there is a difference between “extreme carelessness” (FBI director Comer) and “gross negligence” (text of the law). I doubt that a majority of voters are so inclined.
let me rephrase something. Republican party politics protected Nixon from indictment; so far, Democratic party politics has protected Clinton from indictment.
From the article:
http://www.vox.com/2016/7/16/12205878/donald-trump-mike-pence-vp-speech
From the tweet:
https://twitter.com/ezraklein/status/754375676736659456
The Rolling Stones song played before this was reported to be “You Can’t Always Get What you Want”. Is someone sending a message?
Really? You bringing this kinda stuff here? ” and insofar as the presidential campaign is a test to see who has the character, the discipline, and the seriousness to be President of the United States,”
/sarc
Denizens may have seen nothing yet, for Drama Donald is just starting:
https://twitter.com/harrysiegel/status/754446369457336320
From the article:
…
On July 12, DeSoto, Texas, police said they issued a report on a robber who entered a Waffle House with an AK-47, only to be shot and critically wounded by an armed customer with a handgun.
The incident occurred about 2:30 a.m., and according to The Dallas Morning News, police reports witness accounts that a 26-year-old man entered the Waffle House with an AK-47 and “robbed numerous people as well as the business.” One of the patrons was an armed concealed carry permit holder, and out of concern for his wife, he followed the armed robber into the parking lot — the concealed permit holder’s wife was on her way to the restaurant.
The concealed permit holder said he “called out” to get the robber’s attention and the robber turned, pointing the AK-47 at him. The permit holder “then shot the robber several times.”
…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/15/waffle-house-ak-47-life-support/
From the heart:
https://twitter.com/212degreesnow/status/753363156332838912
Join the NRA ASAP!
More on the NRA and Deter Donald:
https://twitter.com/CarlBialik/status/753240486190714880
The Dallas police were glad other people were not shooting because it would have been hard for them to figure out who the bad guy(s) were.
Do you have link to support that? Sounds like it’s made up out of thin air to me.
The guy’s name is Loomis. Maybe you can find his video statement on Cleveland.
About Pence, I don’t think it matters so much what the Democrats are saying about him. He will appeal to what Trump needs most. The base. The Democrats can preach to their choir all they want, Trump needs the base.
We could extend that argument to the base of Denizens:
https://twitter.com/PeterWSinclair/status/753773300250124288
Denizens might also like:
https://twitter.com/KhatterMD/status/754383110905667584
Donald needs to debase.
“In a 2014 interview with MSNBC’s Chuck Todd, Pence said that he didn’t think the science of climate change was “resolved,” backing up his claim with the fact that his state of Indiana had a “tough winter” that year.”
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/5-real-things-mike-pence-has-said-about-climate-change/
Obumbles takes the same approach as Hollande, even worse by saying “love” will defeat the terrorists. Imb1c1le. From the article:
…
For French President François Hollande, the enemy is an abstraction: “terrorism” or “fanatics”.
Instead, the French president reaffirms his determination to military actions abroad: “We are going to reinforce our actions in Syria and Iraq,” the president said after the Nice attack.
So confronted with this failure of our elite who were elected to guide the country across nationals and internationals dangers, how astonishing is it if paramilitary groups are organizing themselves to retaliate?
In France, the global elites made a choice. They decided that the “bad” voters in France were unreasonable people too stupid to see the beauties of a society open to people who often who do not want to assimilate, who want you to assimilate to them, and who threaten to kill you if you do not. The elite took the side against their own old and poor because those people did not want to vote for them any longer. They also made a choice not to fight Islamism because Muslims vote collectively for this global elite.
…
http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/8489/france-the-coming-civil-war
From the same zionist think tank:
https://www.thenation.com/article/sugar-mama-anti-muslim-hate/
A socialist ideology that is willing to kill anyone who does not want to submit to the Umma Pioneers.
The S word might not mean what you think it means, Arch.
More from Geert Wilders’ social network:
https://twitter.com/BadExampleMan/status/650194529094512640
Freedom Fighters, unite!
Where have we seen this movie before?
France was a long time in building up to this:
Riots in France, winter 2005 and spring 2006
http://riotsfrance.ssrc.org/
From the article:
…
Globalist Obama: Terrorists, Racist Cops Are ‘Chronic Impulses’ to Be Defeated by Global Elites
…
Globalist elite cooperation can defeat the “chronic violence” that is caused by real jihadism in France and supposed racism in police forces, President Barack Obama told a roomful of foreign ambassadors July 15.
…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/15/obama-globalist-chronic-problem/
From the article:
…
Activist critical of police undergoes use of force scenarios
…
+1
Documenting Donald’s dissembling:
https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/754649372000919552
Demean, Degrade, and Divide Donald:
https://twitter.com/MoveOn/status/754662400452734976
https://adblockplus.org/
For the sake of our children.
“If you watch them all, which is a fun thing to do, you’ll see a few actual policy positions; he’s against the Common Core educational standards, and he would use his first day in office to reverse Obama’s executive orders on guns and immigration. But mostly you’ll see macho promises and saccharine platitudes announced with telegenic certitude.”
“Trump is more of a work in progress, a policy Rorschach test. His vagueness and inconsistency allow voters to fill in his policy blanks, while he stands for unobjectionable things like greatness and strength and winning.”
Probably a problem with the reporting, or we’re dealing with ‘just a sales guy’. Daddy’s home kids, things will be all….right:
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/07/donald-trump-policy-2016-hillary-clinton-214058
So do the police treat blacks worse, or better, than they do other racial and ethnic groups?
The debate goes on:
Here are a couple of other studies on whether police treat blacks worse. Folks who frequent this forum will probably find the use of the word “Science” in the title of the first study interesting:
“Police Use of Nonfatal Force” attempts to address the concerns that Sethi raises, but still fails to zero in on the cause as to why more blacks report an experience of police force than whites do. “The researchers cautioned against overgeneralizing their results ‘because we do not know very much about what residents [or the police] did during the interactions that turned forceful’.”
From the article:
…
BATON ROUGE – Police have closed streets between Baton Rouge Police Headquarters and I-12 where law enforcement officers have been shot.
Sources say two Baton Rouge Police officers and one East Baton Rouge Sheriff’s Office deputy are dead following the shooting. Another officer was critically injured. EBRSO confirmed multiple officers from both BRPD and EBRSO sustained injuries in the shooting and were taken to area hospitals. There is no word yet on the extent of all of the injuries.
…
http://www.wbrz.com/news/3-officers-dead-after-shooting-near-brpd-hq
VIDEO: Three Police Officers Shot Dead In Baton Rouge
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/17/breaking_seven_police_officers_shot_three_feared_dead_in_baton_rouge.html
Hollande’s promise to respond militarily to the Nice attack just continues the West’s vicious circle of terror and war
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nice-terrorist-attack-france-isis-francois-hollande-response-syria-iraq-military-bombs-vicious-a7139101.html
From the Mail:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3693588/Police-officer-s-three-year-old-son-accidentally-shoots-kills-himself.html
How Americans view the Black Lives Matter movement
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/08/how-americans-view-the-black-lives-matter-movement/
http://i.imgur.com/UJFtaL7.png
How come the “couldn’t care less” crowd is left out when they’re the largest group?
All Adults – 35% don’t give a damn about BLM
Whites – 32% don’t give a damn about BLM
Blacks – 23% don’t give a damn about BLM
Hispanics – 56% don’t give a damn about BLM
Interesting that Hispanics have the largest amount of apathy for black lives matter movement, innit? Hispanics had nothing to do with slavery in the US and thus don’t succumb to white guilt. Sole reason. So they’re the unbiased observers in this.
I’m born and raised a Yankee, by the way. I don’t feel any guilt either. The rest of y’all should try it on for size. Guilt is like a bag of bricks. Just set it down.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/16/hillary-clinton-promises-propose-constitutional-am/
Trump, being the face of ‘the little guy’ should find agreement with this as a policy.
Danny,
Why do you think proposing a constitutional amendment to “overturn” Citizens United is a “policy” for the “little guy:?
Jean Paul Zodeaux,
Their voice speaks louder than mine.
http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/01/21/5-years-later-citizens-united-has-remade-us-politics
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/report-after-citizens-united-outside-spending-doubles/
This U.S. Presidential election may take on the order of (some have said) $5 billion. This has doubled since 2012. Those in a position to offer a higher level of funding obviously attract a greater level of attention. Campaign reform should be inclusive of lobbying reform IMO. We restrict levels of ‘gifts’ to all sorts of governmental employees. Why not the highest levels?
Corporations are made up of individuals. The individuals voices should be heard independently and not under the umbrella of any entity with which one may not fully agree.
Danny,
I didn’t ask you why other people thought an amendment “overturning” Citizens United was an act for the little guy, I asked you. Ironic though that the first link you deferred your voice to had this to say:
“We have folks that are essentially using million-dollar megaphones to drown out the voices of ordinary citizens,” says Adam Lioz, a senior adviser at the liberal policy group Demos.”
Of course, when I gave you the opportunity to speak to me in your own voice, you decided it was better to let presumably better funded corporations than yourself speak for you.
What I would like to know is why you think a constitutional amendment can “overturn” a Supreme Court decision, and do you think that Court has the power of judicial review over such an amendment? How would this amendment be worded and how would you have this amendment still honor the First Amendment and wouldn’t it have to?
In this thread you’ve made the point that others are fickle when it comes to which rights enumerated in the Constitution that they choose to acknowledge, surely you recognize the the First Amendments prohibition of Congress to “make law” an act that would deny or disparage speech is widely applicable in terms of whom or what can challenge unconstitutional statutes. How do you imagine this amendment will be worded in order to pass constitutional muster?
Limiting dollars. It’s done all the time.
From the wiki: “The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC
Corporations/Unions have taken over with dollars. And I fear we’ve become lazy as we let ‘them’ do the heavy lifting and staying largely uninvolved. Those entities don’t have the same responsibilities as individuals and shouldn’t receive the same kinds of protections, IMO. A person of influence in an organization can pressure individuals to form a ‘consensus’ for that which otherwise might not have been agreed.
As with most legislation, this can be improved.
A constitutional amendment doesn’t have to pass “constitutional muster” with regard to content. It modifies the underlying document. Duh. You’re an imbecile too Jean Clod.
“A constitutional amendment doesn’t have to pass “constitutional muster” with regard to content. It modifies the underlying document. Duh. You’re an imbecile too Jean Clod.”
Little Doofus Spittle brags about his complete and utter ignorance once again. One only need to look at Brushaber v. Union Pacific and Stanton v. Baltic Mining to know that in both those cases, where the 16th Amendment was challenged as unconstitutional, that the SCOTUS certainly thought both parties had legal standing to sue. Don’t you even bother to double check your nonsense before you go spouting it off, Little Doofus?
Forget about the procedural requirements imposed by Article V of the Constitution, according to Little Doofus the First Amendment can be wholly repealed and replaced with a new amendment, and the republic itself can be amended to finally become the democracy so many pine over without any legal challenges what-so-ever, because…well, because the Constitution is public and if people want to challenge unconstitutional amendments they need permission from the public to do so, don’t ya know?
The law, however, is far more nuanced than Little Doofus could ever conceive. On the one hand, the overarching rule is that the where the text of the constitution is clear then the text controls the Supreme Court, but what if Congress passes an Amendment infringing upon the rights of speech when it involves political contributions. This amendment belongs on the other hand, because of the very likely conflict between the First Amendment and the Unicorn Amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. Does Congress have the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied them this power?
The law is simple and should be, but leave it to the simpleton’s like Little Doofus to do what they can to complicate law and make damn sure its all so confusing. The law is not confusing, Little Doofus, its only you who is confused. If constitutional amendments cannot be challenged as unconstitutional then why does the SCOTUS keep hearing challenges? Why did they grant Leser v Garnett ceratori? Why did they hear both Brushaber and Stanton’s challenges? If the challenges couldn’t have the effect of striking down the amendment, what was the point in deciding on those cases? I know, really tough questions, but sooner or later you’re going to have to man up and finally demonstrate some of this so called “intelligence” you keep claiming, Little Doofus
Jean Clod Zoodouche:
https://www.quora.com/Can-a-constitutional-amendment-be-deemed-unconstitutional-by-the-Supreme-Court
http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1653&context=luclj
I was correct and you are an imbecile.
“I was correct and you are an imbecile.”
Little Doofus Spittle,
What kind of mental midget are you? Did you even bother to read the articles you linked? George Wright is in agreement with me, clown boy, not you!
“The Article will conclude that implied substantive limitations on constitutional amendments exist even absent any particular “essence” or overriding spirit that informs the whole constitution. Neither does this theory of implied substantive limits depend upon excessive devotion to the views of the framers or upon any claim that constitutional interpreters must answer to a ‘higher’ or natural law. Rather, implied limits on the substance of constitutional amendments flow from the inescapable logic of any reasonable view of the basic purposes underlying the Constitution, and from the requirement that a constitution exist as a minimally unified, coherent, functioning document”
I expected you to provide law review articles to make your case, but I sure didn’t expect you to supply law review articles that make my case. As little regard I have for you and your dumbed down generation I did not think you would be so spectacularly foolish. Apparently, Little Doofus, despite your obvious lack of intelligence, I had held you in higher regard than you actually deserve. Poseur.
The same goes for the Quora link you provided, which is not really the best source of authority, but it is you providing it after all, so I’ll allow it. You quite clearly did not bother to read past Cliff Gilley’s response because your a poseur. I also find it hysterical that of all the declared “constitutional” students or experts in Quora, not one of them have any idea about Brushaber v Pacific Union, Stanton v Baltic Mining or Lesser v. Garnett. You and your dumbed down generation, expecting to be treated like geniuses because you passed dumbed down tests. Poseur.
I haven’t looked at the other two, but my best understanding of Brushaber v Pacific Union is that in no way did it include any challenge to the “constitutionality” of the 16th Amendment. It did challenge whether the “Revenue Act of 1913” was Constitutional.
A money quote (from Wiki linked above):
It would appear to have been a somewhat nit-picking semantic argument (,albeit one with great financial implications), but not a challenge to the Constitutionality of an Amendment.
“I haven’t looked at the other two, but my best understanding of Brushaber v Pacific Union is that in no way did it include any challenge to the “constitutionality” of the 16th Amendment. It did challenge whether the “Revenue Act of 1913” was Constitutional.”
AK;
The best of your understanding would have been even better still had you taken the time to read the actual case law:
“As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.
The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them. We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.”
~Brushaber v Pacific Union~
Here’s a little more:
“Second, that the contention that the Amendment treats a tax on income as a direct tax although it is relieved from apportionment and is necessarily therefore not subject to the rule of uniformity as such rule only applies to taxes which are not direct, thus destroying the two great classifications which have been recognized and enforced from the beginning, is also wholly without foundation since the command of the Amendment that all income taxes shall not be subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the taxed income may be derived [240 U.S. 1, 19] forbids the application to such taxes of the rule applied in the Pollock Case by which alone such taxes were removed from the great class of excises, duties, and imposts subject to the rule of uniformity, and were placed under the other or direct class. This must be unless it can be said that although the Constitution, as a result of the Amendment, in express terms excludes the criterion of source of income, that criterion yet remains for the purpose of destroying the classifications of the Constitution by taking an excise out of the class to which it belongs and transferring it to a class in which it cannot be placed consistently with the requirements of the Constitution. Indeed, from another point of view, the Amendment demonstrates that no such purpose was intended, and on the contrary shows that it was drawn with the object of maintaining the limitations of the Constitution and harmonizing their operation.”
~Brushaber v Pacific Union~
“The bill contained many averments on the following subjects, which may be divided into two generic classes: (A) Those concerning the operation of the law in question upon individuals generally and upon other than mining corporations…And (B) those dealing with the practical results on the company of the operation of the tax in question, evidently alleged for the purpose of sustaining the charge which the bill made that the tax levied was not what was deemed to be the peculiar direct tax which the 16th Amendment exceptionally authorized to be levied without apportionment, and of the resulting repugnancy of the tax to the Constitution as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, levied without conforming to the regulation of apportionment generally required by the Constitution as to such taxation.”
~Stanton v Baltic Mining~
“The only ground of disqualification alleged was that the applicants for registration were women, whereas the Constitution of Maryland limits the suffrage to men. Ratification of the proposed amendment to the federal [258 U.S. 130, 136] Constitution, now known as the Nineteenth, 41 Stat. 362, had been proclaimed on August 26, 1920, 41 Stat. 1823, pursuant to Revised Statutes , 205 (Comp. St. 303). The Legislature of Maryland had refused to ratify it. The petitioners contended, on several grounds, that the amendment had not become part of the federal Constitution.”
~Leser v Garnett~
Wikipedia is fine as a beginning step, but not nearly thorough enough to base claims such as “is that in no way did it include any challenge to the “constitutionality” of the 16th Amendment.” Going straight to the horses mouth is best, in terms of best understanding.
@Jean Paul Zodeaux (@JeanPaulZodeaux)…
I see no reason to go to the case law, beyond the excerpts you’ve provided, which seem to me to provide no proof, or even evidence, whatsoever of any challenge to the Constitutionality of an amendment due to “conflicts” with the remainder of the Constitution.
The first two appear to be challenges to how the change to the Constitution is to be understood, the third as to whether the ratification had proceeded correctly, and thus whether the amendment had actually become part of the Constitution.
To me, it would appear you have provided no “case law” in support of your original claim:
Your final question builds in a non-fact: if Congress “passes an Amendment” that doesn’t make it part of the Constitution. Congress does not “have the authority to” make any change to the Constitution.
And nobody talking about such an amendment is suggesting that it does. Except, perhaps, you.
“AK;
“I see no reason to go to the case law…”
Of course you don’t. You didn’t when you relied upon Wikipedia to tell you what was ruled in Brushaber and sadly you keep insisting there is no need to actually read the case law. Frankly, you’ve failed to demonstrate that you have even bothered to read the Wikipedia article in its entirety. It appears this way because of how you quoted Wikipedia’s page on Brushaber – a quote you amusingly call the “money quote”:
“A money quote (from Wiki linked above):
“In Brushaber, the Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to “taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived.”
However, if you continue reading that same Wikipedia page you will find this:
“The Court in Brushaber noted that income taxes inherently belonged in the “category” of indirect tax (or excise). The court stated that incomes taxes are indirect excise taxes by reinforcing the Pollock decision”
There is a clear contradiction between the two phrases. Further, Wiki goes on to state:
“Nothing in the Sixteenth Amendment or in Brushaber (and the other cases interpreting the tax provisions of the U.S. Constitution) changes the general rule that direct taxes are still required to be apportioned among the states by population.”
Once again another claim contradicts the first. Brushaber never held that the 16th Amendment “eliminated the requirement of apportionment as it relates to ‘taxes on income, from whatever source derived’. And it doesn’t take a legal scholar to understand that if income taxes “inherently” belong in the category of indirect taxes then there is no rule of apportionment to eliminate. That’s just basic logic….well, and a rudimentary understanding of constitutional taxation and procedures.
What The Supreme Court held in Brushaber is that the Sixteenth Amendment did, in light of Pollock v Farmers Loan & Trust Co., was to clarify that Congress has the power to tax income indirectly, including taxes on rent from property. This is the meaning of “whatever source derived”. The Sixteenth Amendment further clarifies that when Congress levies a tax on income without apportionment or any regard for a census of enumeration that this is because they are taxing income indirectly.
I will address your more recent arguments, despite your refusal to actually read the case law in question in another post, but it is important to point out that Boris Bittiker’s interpretation of Brushaber is erroneous. It is obvious that the Wikipedia page is relying heavily upon Bittiker’s interpretation, but they have also pointed out that the SCOTUS made the point that the 16th Amendment placed income tax in the category of indirect taxation where it inherently belongs.
” Indeed, in the light of the history which we have given and of the decision in the Pollock Case, and the ground upon which the ruling in that case was based, there is no escape from the conclusion that the Amendment was drawn for the purpose of doing away for the future with the principle upon which the Pollock Case was decided; that is, of determining whether a tax on income was direct not by a consideration of the burden placed on the taxed income upon which it directly operated, but by taking into view the burden which resulted on the property from which the income was derived, since in express terms the Amendment provides that income taxes, from whatever source the income may be derived, shall not be subject to the regulation of apportionment.”
Chief Justice White had made the point earlier that:
“Coming to consider the validity of the tax from this point of view, while not questioning at all that in common understanding it was direct merely on income and only indirect on property, it was held that, considering the substance of things, it was direct on property in a constitutional sense, since to burden an income by a tax was, from the point of substance, to burden the property from which the income was derived, and thus accomplish the very thing which the provision as to apportionment of direct taxes was adopted to prevent.”
Justice White recognizes that by taking the view that a tax on rents was a direct tax on property (as the majority did in Pollock) meant also recognizing that under this view it was the income being taxed directly and the property only taxed indirectly. Without chastising or criticizing the principle held in Pollock – something the 16th Amendment also declines to do – Justice White is pointing out the paradoxical nature of viewing an income tax as a direct tax on property, even if it involved rent derived from property.
The Supreme Court held that the Sixteenth Amendment clarified that Congress has the authority to keep income taxation within the category of indirect taxation and as such has no obligation to the rule of apportionment, only the rule of uniformity. Your willingness to let Wikipedia tell you what to think has hurt your ability to understand this, even if Wikipedia did offer you clues they were feeding you data porn…which is what made your “money quote” so amusing.
I will address your more recent arguments in another post.
AK;
“…beyond the excerpts you’ve provided, which seem to me to provide no proof, or even evidence, whatsoever of any challenge to the Constitutionality of an amendment due to “conflicts” with the remainder of the Constitution.”
Let’s break it down very simply.
““As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.”
Perhaps, if you failed to read past this sentence, it might explain why you claim:
“The first two appear to be challenges to how the change to the Constitution is to be understood.”
However, Justice White’s next sentence is:
“The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them.”
You do know what “intermingled” means, don’t you? Why is it difficult to classify them? Justice White explains with his next sentence:
“We are of opinion, however, [240 U.S. 1, 11] that the confusion is not inherent, but rather arises from the conclusion that the 16th Amendment provides for a hitherto unknown power of taxation; that is, a power to levy an income tax which, although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.”
For your clarification, Justice White has just explained that it is difficult to classify the intermingled contentions because of the plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment, not because of anything inherent in the 16th Amendment or the subsequent revenue bill in question, but because of the plaintiff’s view, of the 16th Amendment, of which White chooses to frame the appellant’s view with language such as “a hitherto unknown power of taxation” and “although direct, should not be subject to the regulation of apportionment applicable to all other direct taxes.”
By framing the contention as such, Justice White has laid out why it is the SCOTUS actually refers to the 16th Amendment 36 or 37 times and why it is they demonstrate the constitutionality of the 16th Amendment. So, when Justice White holds:
“But it clearly results that the proposition (the plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment) and the contentions [240 U.S. 1, 12] under it (challenges to the revenue bill), if acceded to, would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another; that is, they would result in bringing the provisions of the Amendment exempting a direct tax from apportionment into irreconcilable conflict with the general requirement that all direct taxes be apportioned. Moreover, the tax authorized by the Amendment, being direct, would not come under the rule of uniformity applicable under the Constitution to other than direct taxes, and thus it would come to pass that the result of the Amendment would be to authorize a particular direct tax not subject either to apportionment or to the rule of geographical uniformity, thus giving power to impose a different tax in one state or states than was levied in another state or states. This result, instead of simplifying the situation and making clear the limitations on the taxing power, which obviously the Amendment must have been intended to accomplish, would create radical and destructive changes in our constitutional system and multiply confusion.”
Bruhsaber v Union Pacific – (parenthetical statements added).
I realize what I just quoted is something I had not earlier quoted but until now I had no reason to believe you would simply refuse to read the case law in question and attempt to analyze what was held based upon excerpts.
“…the third as to whether the ratification had proceeded correctly, and thus whether the amendment had actually become part of the Constitution.”
Leser v Garnett actually addresses both procedural challenges made to the 19th Amendment and substantive challenges.
“The only ground of disqualification alleged was that the applicants for registration were women, whereas the Constitution of Maryland limits the suffrage to men.”
~Leser v Garnnett~
This contention (as erroneous as it may have been) is a states rights issue, which is a substantive issue not a procedural issue imposed by Article V. As to Stanton v Baltic Mining, which was the second of the “first two” you speak of here is more excerpts for you:
“And (B) those dealing with the practical results on the company of the operation of the tax in question, evidently alleged for the purpose of sustaining the charge which the bill made that the tax levied was not what was deemed to be the peculiar direct tax which the 16th Amendment exceptionally authorized to be levied without apportionment, and of the resulting repugnancy of the tax to the Constitution as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, levied without conforming to the regulation of apportionment generally required by the Constitution as to such taxation.”
Just as the appellant’s in Brushaber had done, so to do the appellant’s in Stanton make erroneous assumptions about the meaning of the 16th Amendment, which Justice White has earlier explained were dealt with in Brushaber so there was no need to rehash them in Stanton, except to acknowledge that the contentions made about the the repugnancy of the revenue bill were based upon the appellant’s view that the 16th Amendment was, with its “peculiar direct tax” also repugnant to the constitution.
In Stanton v Baltic Mining the Chief Justice White, having a second chance to render an opinion regarding erroneous interpretations of the 16th Amendment was able to state more cogently why the appellant’s view of that amendment was mistaken:
“The contention is that as the tax here imposed is not on the net product, but in a sense somewhat equivalent to a tax on the gross product of the working of the mine by the corporation, therefore the tax is not within the purview of the 16th Amendment, and consequently it must be treated as a direct tax on property because of its ownership, and as such void for want of apportionment. But, aside from the obvious error of the proposition, intrinsically considered, it manifestly disregards the fact that by the previous ruling it was settled that the provisions of the 16th Amendment conferred no new power of taxation, but simply prohibited the previous complete and plenary power of income taxation possessed by Congress from the beginning from being taken out of the category of indirect taxation to which it inherently belonged, and being placed [240 U.S. 103, 113] in the category of direct taxation subject to apportionment by a consideration of the sources from which the income was derived,-that is, by testing the tax not by what it was, a tax on income, but by a mistaken theory deduced from the origin or source of the income taxed. Mark, of course, in saying this we are not here considering a tax not within the provisions of the 16th Amendment, that is, one in which the regulation of apportionment or the rule of uniformity is wholly negligible because the tax is one entirely beyond the scope of the taxing power of Congress, and where consequently sequently no authority to impose a burden, either direct or indirect, exists. In other words, we are here dealing solely with the restriction imposed by the 16th Amendment on the right to resort to the source whence an income is derived in a case where there is power to tax for the purpose of taking the income tax out of the class of indirect, to which it generically belongs, and putting it in the class of direct, to which it would not otherwise belong, in order to subject it to the regulation of apportionment.”
Returning to Brushaber:
“So far as the due process clause of the 5th Amendment is relied upon (a contention made by appellant), it suffices to say that there is no basis for such reliance, since it is equally well settled that such clause is not a limitation upon the taxing power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution; in other words, that the Constitution does not conflict with itself by conferring, upon the one hand, a taxing power, and taking the same power away, on the other, by the limitations of the due process clause.”
~Brushaber v. Union Pacific (parenthetical statement added)~
The appellant in Brushaber was necessarily challenging the validity of the 16th Amendment with this contention, that the 16th conflicts with the 5th, and again, this is an argument of substantive limitations on constitutional amendments and that the Supreme Court deigned to hear these arguments it is easily inferred from that the Supreme Court does recognize a power to place constitutional amendments under judicial review. That becomes much clearer in light of Leser v Garnnett.
Your intellectual laziness is problematic, AK. If you don’t want to read the case law you don’t have to, but you are making assumptions not based on evidence, unless you want to count the data porn site Wikipedia as “evidence”, but I reject that, and am only willing to recommend that site as a place to begin one’s research, not become the source of knowledge.
[…]
Well, I read this as saying that the “plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment” is wrong because it “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another”, rather than that the plaintiff was actually saying the 16th Amendment was invalid because it conflicted with another provision of the Constitution.
I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to spend on your arguments, considering how blithely you leave out critical steps in the amendment process (see my comment below), thus giving an incorrect impression in your statement.
I suspect I would just be wasting my time digging through your semantic games.
Let me address the case law WRT Leser v Garnnett:
[…]
OK, there has been a challenge, in the original case, on the basis of substance, but it would seem to me that it was addressed and dismissed simply because it was there, not because it was covered under the writ of certiorari, which regarded “[w]hether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the federal Constitution”.
I don’t see this as recognizing any right of judicial review of the substance of any Constitutional Amendment (beyond the “equal suffrage in the Senate” clause of Article V). The challenge “cannot be entertained.”
The remaining contentions involve the actual process of ratification, not the substance.
I find your arguments tiresome and time-wasting, without making what I consider a worthwhile case that the SCOTUS has recognized a right to challenge Constitutional Amendments on their substance, beyond the single “equal suffrage in the Senate” exclusion.
If you’re going to make a point, why not make it, rather than quoting large sections of irrelevant material, then criticizing me for not going to the original case law for what matters.
AK;
“Your final question builds in a non-fact: if Congress “passes an Amendment” that doesn’t make it part of the Constitution. Congress does not “have the authority to” make any change to the Constitution.
I have read this last argument of yours over several times, as well as what came before it but I still cannot makes heads or tails with what you’re saying here. Are you arguing that I am arguing that “if Congress ‘passes an Amendment” that doesn’t make it part of the Constitution, and are you arguing that I have argued that “Congress does not ‘have the authority to’ make any change to the Constitution”? If this is what you are arguing it is a strawman.
My confusion over what you meant by all that stems from what you quoted of what I actually did say:
“[… W]hat if Congress passes an Amendment infringing upon the rights of speech when it involves political contributions. This amendment belongs on the other hand, because of the very likely conflict between the First Amendment and the Unicorn Amendment that will “overturn” Citizens United. Does Congress have the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied them this power?”
When I ask if Congress has the authority to eliminate an earlier part of the constitution regarding rights of the people and replace it with an amendment empowering Congress to finally “make law” where earlier text denied this power, I am not implying that Congress doesn’t have the power to change the constitution, I am implying that Congress’ power is subject to the a.) the people, and b.) the Constitution itself through substantive limitations.
There is no express language, nor even any language where one might be able to infer that Congress’ ability to make amendments to the constitution necessarily placed a burden on the people, relieving them of their right to turn to the courts for judicial review in regards to those amendments, and neither you, nor your colleague Whoseya McCallhim have even attempted to explain why it is the people have no legal standing to challenge a constitutional amendment based upon substantive limitations. Indeed, your colleague linked to a law review article by George Wright, making my case about substantive limits, but, of course, you don’t need to read that either, do you?
@Jean Paul Zodeaux (@JeanPaulZodeaux)…
Well, I was saying one thing, and suggesting another, based on what seemed like (perhaps) vagueness in your language.
Congress has no authority to make any changes to the Constitution.
Period, end of sentence.
The authority to make changes to the Constitution lies in the states, who ratify, or not, such amendments.
Congress can pass any “amendment” they want, and it’s just a piece of paper until the requisite number of states have ratified it and that ratification been properly certified (by the Attorney General, IIRC).
I learned this stuff in 7th grade, private school, so I can’t say for sure whether it was properly taught in the “social studies” class I had in High School or not. I know our educational system has deteriorated substantially since I was in high school (late ’60’s), I’m not surprised many people don’t understand it.
I was suggesting that perhaps you didn’t understand this, the alternative being that you were just leaving out that critical step for purposes of brevity.
He’s not my colleague, I disagree with him on many subjects. I do happen to agree with him that your thoughts are, at best, poorly thought out and/or expressed.
He certainly could be right that you’re a blithering idi0t.
And yes, I did read that article, well part of it. It makes the point that there is just one substantive limitation on amendments: “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
As for the theories about amendments that impact the Constitution’s standing qua constitution, they’re interesting, but the issue of judicial review is probably moot. My guess is that they’d be settled by war, same as last time.
Let’s assume that “Congress” in this case refers to the entire system of Congress proposing, and the States ratifying (by 3/4 vote).
The clear language of Article V says that they do. They have the authority to make any changes except “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.” The 17th Amendment is an example of a change that directly supercedes the prior Constitutional article. The only case law I could find involved squabbles over the meaning of the wording of the amendment, no challenge to its right of supersession.
It might be worded, for instance, as saying that the “freedom of the press” shall not be held to extend to the provision of large amounts of money, or equivalent, for the purpose of distributing material intended to influence the decisions of voters, where they do not take some initiative to acquire it. Along with some definition of “large” that would allow small expenditures, within the typical means of a good fraction of the populace.
Thus, paying for a blog, or other website, where you can express your views would be covered under “freedom of the press”, as well as “freedom of speech”, while large expenditures for advertising or leafleting, for the purpose of influencing voting decisions would be subject to legislative control.
“Well, I read this as saying that the “plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment” is wrong because it “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another”, rather than that the plaintiff was actually saying the 16th Amendment was invalid because it conflicted with another provision of the Constitution.”
AK;
Yes, that is my reading too. This further clarifies what Chief Justice White meant by:
“As all the grounds assert a violation of the Constitution, it follows that, in a wide sense, they all charge a repugnancy of the statute to the 16th Amendment, under the more immediate sanction of which the statute was adopted.
The various propositions are so intermingled as to cause it to be difficult to classify them.”
It was the Supreme Court that recognized that the contentions the appellant made necessarily included an attack on the 16th Amendment itself. But your explanation of the SCOTUS declaring the appellant wrong about the Amendment also implicitly means that had the appellant been right then this “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another” and bring into question the validity of the 16th Amendment.
“I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to spend on your arguments…”
When I’m not sure how much time I’m willing to spend on an argument, what I don’t do is take that argument up until I am willing to make the needed time, because…well, intellectual laziness is problematic to say the least.
“I suspect I would just be wasting my time digging through your semantic games.”
Maybe. You’re most assuredly wasting your time relying on deflections like “semantic games”, particularly on a debate about law, constitutional text and case law where each and every word should be given significance.
“Let me address the case law WRT Leser v Garnnett…OK, there has been a challenge, in the original case, on the basis of substance…”
See what happens when you actually read the case law in question, instead of relying on other people to tell you what to think?
“but it would seem to me that it was addressed and dismissed simply because it was there, not because it was covered under the writ of certiorari, which regarded “[w]hether the Nineteenth Amendment has become part of the federal Constitution”.
I’m not clear what you mean by this, but when the Supreme Court addresses an argument because “it is there”, and particularly what “is there” is a substantive issue over the 19th Amendment, this brings into question whether the 19th Amendment “has become a part of the Constitution.”
Further, it appears as if you don’t know what certiorari means, nor do you seem to understand the difference between a writ of error and a a writ of certiorari, nor do you even appear to understand that appellants had also filed a writ of error which was dismissed by the SCOTUS but the writ of certiorari granted. The writ of certiorari simply means at least four of the Justices sitting on the bench thought the petitioners case merited review, and in granting certiorari the SCOTUS directs the lower court in question to send the record of proceedings for review, and that is why the substantive issue “was there”.
“I don’t see this as recognizing any right of judicial review of the substance of any Constitutional Amendment (beyond the “equal suffrage in the Senate” clause of Article V). The challenge “cannot be entertained.”
Your use of quotation marks around the phrase “cannot be entertained” is an outright deception intended to make it appear as if the SCOTUS has argued that substantive challenges to constitutional amendments cannot be entertained, but while the SCOTUS, in Leser v. Garnnett, did use that phrase, and you just quoted it yourself, here is the context to that phrase one more time:
“The suggestion that the Fifteenth was incorporated in the Constitution, not in accordance with law, but practically as a war measure which has been validated by acquiescence, cannot be entertained.”
The Supreme Court has not held that substantive challenges to constitutional amendments “cannot be entertained”, and your awkward attempt at deception gives evidence that you know this.
“I find your arguments tiresome and time-wasting…”
Again, when I find arguments tiresome and time-wasting I just don’t take them up, but that’s just me.
“If you’re going to make a point, why not make it, rather than quoting large sections of irrelevant material, then criticizing me for not going to the original case law for what matters.”
I, of course, quoted from large sections of relevant case law because of your foolish attempt to speak authoritatively about case law you clearly had not read, whether you can grasp the point or not is on you, not me.
“Well, I was saying one thing, and suggesting another, based on what seemed like (perhaps) vagueness in your language.”
AK,
It is pretty funny that you excuse your own vagueness because you perceive a vagueness in my language. You were saying one thing, and suggesting another, were you?
“Congress has no authority to make any changes to the Constitution.
Period, end of sentence.
The authority to make changes to the Constitution lies in the states, who ratify, or not, such amendments.”
Thank you for the clarification. This is not an argument I care to take up as I find it to be a silly quibble of process, nothing more.
It kind of follows that people who spell out the punctuation mark “period” would then explain what that means with “end of sentence”. Thanks for that clarification from the department of redundancy department as well.
“I learned this stuff in 7th grade, private school, so I can’t say for sure whether it was properly taught in the “social studies” class I had in High School or not. I know our educational system has deteriorated substantially since I was in high school (late ’60’s), I’m not surprised many people don’t understand it.”
Don’t kid yourself, education had already deteriorated substantially by the late ’60’s, which probably explains much of your confusion.
“I was suggesting that perhaps you didn’t understand this, the alternative being that you were just leaving out that critical step for purposes of brevity.”
I actually thought that when I argued:
“Forget about the procedural requirements imposed by Article V of the Constitution…”
I had made fairly clear that a.) there are procedural challenges that can be made to a constitutional amendment, and b.) that procedural challenges were not my concern and what followed that sentence was an argument that made clear I was concerned about substantive issues. To be clear, I was not “saying one thing and suggesting another”, but instead was saying I was not interested in making procedural arguments about an amendment that doesn’t even exist.
“He’s not my colleague, I disagree with him on many subjects. I do happen to agree with him that your thoughts are, at best, poorly thought out and/or expressed.”
Who do you mean? Oh! Do you mean Whoseya McCallhim? In terms of this argument – can an amendment be challenged as unconstitutional – there is my argument that yes, such challenges can be made and then there is the opposing argument being made by you and your colleague Whoseya McCallhim.
“He certainly could be right that you’re a blithering idi0t.”
We can play that game if you want, before we do, I’ll ask you point blank, do you want to play that game?
“And yes, I did read that article, well part of it. It makes the point that there is just one substantive limitation on amendments: “that no state, without its consent, shall be deprived of its equal suffrage in the Senate.”
It does not appear as if you read much at all of George Wright’s Article based upon your assessment of it. Perhaps you’ve confused that with some other article. Here is the same link your colleague provided:
http://lawecommons.luc.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1653&context=luclj
Wright’s article is a great read, not because he makes my argument, but because he bends over backwards to offer a critical analysis of that argument…meaning he lends far more credence to the arguments you and your colleague are making than I am willing to do.
The reason I am unwilling to do that is because I am the advocate for the right of the people to seek a redress of grievances and whatever antithesis need be offered to my thesis should be done by the opposing advocate(s). This is how the legal system works, where litigants present a thesis and antithesis heard by a judge who offers up a resolution. Granted, here in this thread we are in the kangaroo court of public opinion where each person reading yours and my arguments must reach their own conclusions.
“As for the theories about amendments that impact the Constitution’s standing qua constitution, they’re interesting, but the issue of judicial review is probably moot. My guess is that they’d be settled by war, same as last time.”
The issue of judicial review is probably not moot, and your resignation that only war can settle this issue should be reason enough to reconsider your stance…unless you pine for war, I guess. Your declaration that judicial review of constitutional amendments is “probably moot” is an unearned declaration, and you have miserably failed to demonstrate why it would be “probably moot”. You certainly haven’t pointed to anything the SCOTUS has said on the matter – outside your sloppy deceptions – only to what the SCOTUS has not said.
Which clearly demonstrates that your blather isn’t worth wasting any more time on.
“Which clearly demonstrates that your blather isn’t worth wasting any more time on.”
Okay then, let’s play that game.
All you insufferable snobs who’ve attended the esteemed University of Pot looking down your noses at all those poor, poor pitiful slobs who’ve attended the State College of Kettle are so secure in your belief that your education is superior to those around you, just like any blithering id1ot you’ve convinced yourself you don’t actually have to learn anything more. This is why you thought you could take up this argument without any knowledge what-so-ever in regards to the case law you decided to take up.
I know, I know; “But, but, but…Wikipedia!” Yes, yes, you and your “money quote”, but I’ve actually witnessed you yourself make this claim:
“Well, I read this as saying that the “plaintiff’s view of the 16th Amendment” is wrong because it “would cause one provision of the Constitution to destroy another”, rather than that the plaintiff was actually saying the 16th Amendment was invalid because it conflicted with another provision of the Constitution.”
Which demonstrates that you know that Wikipedia is wrong with their so called “money quote”, but still, you cannot be bothered to actually read Brushaber v. Pacific Union. You made it clear you didn’t bother to read it when you took this argument up, and you made it clear you still hadn’t read it when you doubled down and built a slap dash wall of defense to protect and defend your ignorance by claiming you didn’t need to read it all you had to do was read excerpts from it.
You’ve claimed to read the article your cohort linked (well “part of it” anyways) and then you demonstrated you hadn’t read that article…not even part of it. You’ve whined and pissed and moaned about not wanting to put the time in needed to actually make a valid argument. You’ve deflected and amusingly thought it intelligent to dismiss semantics as merely a “game” in an argument about law and the legal system.
Of course you would dismiss your opponent, who has read the case law in question, who did read the article your colleague linked, who has taken the time to study the issue, as a “blithering id1ot”. What else, after all, can you do? Well, of course, you could just do the work required to make a cogent and valid argument, but you’ve made it clear that ain’t gonna happen, so get right down to the name calling.
When you lack the mental capacity to effectively rebut sound arguments, I get it, it can be frustrating. You don’t, however, lack this capacity because of nature, AK. You lack this mental capacity because you’re lazy. So, why are you so angry? You’re so angry because deep down in that addled brain of yours a notion is coming to mind, and it has occurred to you that you’re the guy wearing the black hat. You’re the guy who is arguing against the right of the people to seek a redress of grievance by turning to the courts to challenge an amendment repugnant to the constitution.
Of course, this is often the governments position, but you don’t have to put on the black hat in order to take up the governments position. If you want to wear the white hat while arguing the governments position you better damn know well know what you’re talking about. You have openly paraded your ignorance and clung to it as if it was a velvet lapel on your navy blue blazer with the University of Pot insignia on it.
If you can’t make a valid argument and your only solution to the problem of amendments repugnant to the constitution is civil war, this is hardly evidence of wisdom, hot shot. Nobody made you put on the black hat, AK, that was your own idea.
“From the wiki: “The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office.”
Danny,
Right, Citizens United was in regards to “electioneering communications” where Citizens United was up against an FEC that claimed it had the authority to ban books even if it was just one sentence in that book that expressly advocated for the victory or defeat of a candidate during that specified election cycle. The FEC also argued they could ban digital books provided on Kindle by Amazon and could prevent a union from hiring a writer to write a political book. That’s a lot of power being claimed, Danny, and in terms of the “little guy”, in this instance the little guy wasn’t the FEC, it was Citizens United.
The SCOTUS, divided as it was, correctly recognized that “If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech.” So the big hoopla now is that…what? Upwards of $5 billion has been spent on this current election cycle and this somehow drowns out the “little guys” voice?
When the “little guy” wants the FEC to have the kind of power that Citizens United managed to successfully challenge I wonder why? Why does the little guy need the FEC to stop unions from hiring writers to write political books, and why does the little guy need the FEC to stop Amazon from providing its Kindle users with electioneering communications if this what the Kindle users want? Why does the little guy need the FEC from preventing non profit organizations from releasing a political film and advertising that release? Who is forcing the little guy to be persuaded by all of this? Is the little guy just so little he can’t even make up his own mind and is hopelessly trapped by the propaganda shown by the highest bidder? If so, how is it the FEC can really help them with that?
This should help.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/citizens_united_how_justice_kennedy_has_paved_the_way_for_the_re.html
Specifically, the question of what kind of donation gives the appearance of corruption which is why there are direct contribution limits in the first place.
***
In Citizens United, Kennedy resolved what appeared to be an empirical question about independent spending and corruption: “We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
The flat statement of fact is illogical. If the court believes that the government may limit a $3,000 contribution to a candidate because of its corruptive potential, how could it not believe that the government has a similar anticorruption interest in limiting $3 million spent in an independent effort to elect that candidate? Would a federal candidate not feel much more beholden to the big spender than the more modest contributor?
***
VIDEO: CNN’s Harry Houck — “False Narrative” About Racist Cops Is Promoting A “War On Police”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/17/cnns_harry_houck_false_narrative_about_racist_cops_is_promoting_a_war_on_police.html
From the NBC:
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/national-international/Sandy-Hook-Mother-Sends-Pizza-to-House-Democrats-Nelba-Marquez-Greene-384145791.html
Everyone should prefer pizza to hate, even Glenn & jim.
Pizza is bad for you. High in saturated fat, cholesterol, and refined glutenous wheat flour. Hate won’t clog arteries or cause type II diabetes or Crohn’s disease. I hate you enough to wish you all the pizza in the world and that feels good to say!
David Springer,
If you hate more or harder, does it increase your lifespan?
Maybe I’m just too lazy to hate. Can’t be bothered, I suppose.
I’m happy enough being content. To each his own. If hating brings you contentment or happiness, go as hard as you can.
Cheers.
Only if you hate the right things.
Write that down.
VIDEO: Cleveland Police Association President Steve Loomis — Obama “Has Blood On His Hands”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/17/cleveland_police_association_president_obama_has_blood_on_his_hands.html
One thing that did make sense was that he is also in favor of banning open carry for the duration of the convention in Cleveland. That steps on some perceived rights, but it makes it easier for the police to handle situations that may develop. He might get some pushback on that request from the NRA types.
I certainly would not go anywhere near one of the presidential conventions toting a gun.
Why tempt the gods?
Especially as a black guy with police around, I would add. That officer made it very clear his police would not take kindly to that.
From the police perspective anyone doing open carry at any time should be considered suspicious, or at least up to no good, and they should follow them. If you don’t want police attention, don’t be carrying a gun.
Disappearing Donald:
https://twitter.com/essencemag/status/754093725266112512
Disappearing Willard:
https://adblockplus.org/
Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.
“I was wrong: Trump WILL be the next president”
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/01/i-was-wrong-trump-will-be-the-next-president-commentary.html
“And that brings me to my last mistake about Trump’s chances: I underestimated how bad Hillary Clinton’s campaign would be. To be fair, I never thought Clinton was a particularly strong candidate. But at every essential task of marketing and messaging, the Clinton campaign has been surprisingly bad.”
“We all know Trump’s key slogan/promise is “Make America Great Again.” I’m still not sure what Hillary Clinton’s key slogan/promise is and I follow her campaign very closely. Is it “I’m with Her?” If so, it’s not very good in that it doesn’t seem to have anything in it for the person who isn’t “her.””
I am not her. What’s in this for me?
Humiliate Hillary 2016—smile, she is now on candid camera for the next 113 days, that will be good for something.
JCH:
“The establishment is a gift from people who were tired of the establishment. That tail you’re chasing… is yours.”
We have met the enemy and he is us.
Danny Thomas needs to take a look at the Michael Wolff interview in the video at the top of the article.
Trump’s lack of policy specifics may not be a flaw, but a feature.
Glenn,
Video viewed as requested. Area of agreement. Trumps ‘shooting from the hip’ is indeed a feature of his campaign. But should it be? The fact that we’re basically lazy and don’t vet our candidates well but often vote for a party or a ‘single issue’ has led us to where we are.
I guess the main surprise for me is that we’re dealing with a job candidate who’s interviewing with us and will not detail his qualifications and approaches.
Is not the first and most basic part of any job interview to address the qualifications of the candidate? If not, then I’m putting in right now for Dr. Curry’s job as a world renowned scientist. And I’ll be great and will make climate science great again.
Danny Thomas,
Another observation that I believe is germane about how Trump overthrew the Republican Party royalty:
Glenn,
(beginning)
“Nobody had paid attention to them for a long time.” (Yep, I’m a ‘them’)
(end)
“These are not Republicans.” Or not Republicans as he’d known them. They were no one’s constituency, until now.”
It’s the middle part that bothers me. Trump may indeed be just fine, but there’s almost nothing on which to base a decision expecting that.
“They were no one’s constituency, until now.”
If you can’t beat them, join them.
The Republicans have a victim group now. Let’s see if they can keep it.
Ragnaar,
As Robert Huges said, “Since our new-found sensitivity decrees that only the victim shall be the hero, the white American male starts bawling for victim status too.”
Danny Thomas:
That game used to be played by the establishment. Clinton and a number of Republicans were vetted by the establishment. But the peasants stormed the Republican castle and decided to make their own choice. From their point of view, they knew what was wrong. That was sufficient. Next go around, it will be different. Super Delegates will be part the Republican nomination.
Ragnaar,
“Super Delegates will be part the Republican nomination.” That would be expected wouldn’t it. Apt description of the times.
The question, for me, is if the ‘insurrection’ should be supported to a highly variable end or go the more ‘conservative’ route and stay with the status quo. Or even toss out to an outlier.
Danny Thomas:
As much as I disagree with Trump, I am supporting it. I am tired of the establishment.
Ragnaar,
And I fully respect that choice. I wish I had your faith.
I’m working hard on how I will decide and can only hope Trump is putting in as much effort (he may wind up as my president if I like it or not). I will not allow myself to opt out as I’m not wired that way, so now I find myself faced with a decision between folks I wouldn’t hire for the job. But with only two (major) candidates it presents as a dilemma.
There are many intelligent folks who kindly provide their insight. The feedback mechanism provided here is a tool I’ve not had available to me prior to this presidential election so I’m trying to take advantage of the resource. Please forgive any transgressions as I make no intent to offend. I do choose to respond in kind when it’s made personal. But in part that’s some of the entertainment value of this thread.
Tell me to shut up when I should.
Danny Thomas | July 17, 2016 at 7:29 pm |
“I’m putting in right now for Dr. Curry’s job as a world renowned scientist. And I’ll be great and will make climate science great again.”
I don’t believe you. Track record is everything.
What have you fought for and won in the past?
“I don’t believe you. Track record is everything.”
Like when I was a democrat, err, independent, republican, democrat, I mean republican all while supporting, I mean rejecting the Iraq war and planned to ban Muslim’s while not really banning them all while building a wall which isn’t really gonna get built?
And the entire time I was Great!, it was Great!, and did I mention I was Great?
Danny Thomas,
If you believe that any of us has a track record that could match that of Donald Trump, you’ve completely lost the plot. Just look at his children. Look at the business empire he’s built.
Clinton Inc., of course hasn’t done too badly.
We can question the means by which both dynasties achieved their great success.
There is, however, one striking difference between the two. Trump admits that he is part of the establishment, and took full advantage of all the privileges and opportunites it offers, as unseemly and malordorous as they may be.
Clinton, on the other hand, sanctifies the establishment and the role she has played in it.
G’day Glenn,
Just have a bit of fun with Springers suggestion that ‘the track record’ is all that matters. Because when one follows ‘the track’ one might find a bit of a meander with a few forks and potholes.
When I hire a new president, I look to them for leadership. State a plan, delegate, and implement.
David, being the grunt kinda guy he projects to be, seems to prefer to follow command who doesn’t know where it’s heading, has no idea how it’ll get there, and knows not what it’ll do when it arrives. Heck, he doesn’t even know what clothes to pack. But good on him for following faithfully.
To each their own.
“I am tired of the establishment. …”
The establishment is a gift from people who were tired of the establishment. That tail you’re chasing… is yours.
Meanwhile, in Florida:
https://twitter.com/_FloridaMan/status/754647323943329792
Meanwhile install Adblock Plus on your browser and then watch Weepy Willard’s messages disappear into spam oblivion. Join half a million others with this free add-on:
https://adblockplus.org/
And don’t forget to Vote Trump, the not extremely careless candidate.
From the article:
…
On July 14, Texas police detective Nick Selby penned an op-ed in which he described gun control pushes as misplaced, arguing instead for criminal control.
He pointed out that every high-profile attack post-Sandy Hook Elementary School has been followed by a gun control push from Obama, yet the laws pushed are never realized, and in cities where such laws exist, no difference is made, such as in Chicago.
Writing in The Washington Post, Selby conceded that he and his fellow officers would like the levels of gun violence diminished, but he stressed that the way to do it is not via gun control, but criminal control. He wrote:
Mass shootings remain outliers. Two-thirds of gun deaths are suicides. The tyranny of everyday shootings—the 12,000 homicides a year that happen so regularly that some people don’t even call 911 anymore—follow patterns completely divorced from the weapons used. These shootings have much more to do with the realities of life for the poor, the drug-addicted, the mentally ill and the criminal.
…
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2016/07/16/detective-forget-gun-control-focus-on-criminal-control/
And now from our New York correspondent:
https://twitter.com/anyidea/status/754855316764758016
I’m not certain Alinksky would think your efforts here live up to his farting-at-the-symphony tactic, Willard. He’s such a creative … whatever.
Of course you’re not certain, jim2. It’s not from Breitbart’s, so how could you be certain?
Here, have some Disaster Donald Duo:
https://twitter.com/ComplexMag/status/754864450323308544
An excerpt:
https://twitter.com/realDenaldTrump/status/754818509193052160
Much as I would like Trump to have tweeted that, note the misspelling of the Twitter handle.
Wily Willard wouldn’t care about whether a quote was accurate or not. It’s the content not the veracity that counts for people like Wicked Willard.
> It’s the content not the veracity that counts […]
Spoken like the Donald himself:
https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/754642682681577473
Another tweet from the same article:
https://twitter.com/TorriOats/status/754817836355387392
No, it’s not a real photo. Yet its “content” has more veracity than the sum of all of Big Dave’s contributions.
When will Big Dave produce his tests, BTW?
The photo:
https://twitter.com/FrankAKadar/status/754817324692213761
Willard
The last photo with the Kadar tweet is great. As one of those lefty, ohhh look at how enlightened I am, kind of guy , characterized by a dour, lecturing demeanor that you usually present in your comments, you have surprised me with some great humor.
You’ve become a real comedian. You’re not yet a Lucille Ball, but then neither is Tina Fey.
Thank you for the kind words, Kid. In return, rest assured that I have not any ready-made opinion on your own contributions, for I seldom read them.
Wishful Willard I can’t see your responses. I have an ad blocker installed in my browser and rightly recognizes your responses as spam and disappears it. Try to use your own words, if you have any, if you wish me to respond.
https://adblockplus.org/
Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.
““If it’s reasonable for Trump to want to make sure his potential running mates are doing their taxes on the up and up, it’s equally reasonable for the American public to want to know the same about his taxes,” he said.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-demanded-vp-candidate-tax-docs-he-wont-make-public/2016/07/15/259db980-4ada-11e6-8dac-0c6e4accc5b1_story.html
But there may be a problem with the reporting.
Dr. Frankenstein, on his Donald:
https://twitter.com/SopanDeb/status/754904639917744128
No hyperbole there. End of civilization. Check. Got it.
/sarc
Vote Trump. The candidate not extremely careless enough to end civilization.
Another quote from the same article:
Cut to Big Dave’s take on content and veracity.
http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/07/25/donald-trumps-ghostwriter-tells-all
Tony Schwartz admits he can be paid to lie as an explanation for how the supposed untruths went into “The Art of the Deal”. Was he paid for this “tell all” by people desperate to keep The Donald out of the White House? You can’t trust a liar, Unwary Willard, and the only thing we know for sure about Tony Schwartz is that he’s a liar.
Write that down of course.
Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.
Wailing Willard knew the content and veracity was questionable, of course. It was obvious. So Waffling Willard thought he’d defuse me pointing it out by predicting it.
Hard to believe, isn’t it? I love it so!
Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.
> Tony Schwartz admits he can be paid to lie […]
A quote might be tough to find, for what Schwartz only admits that Deceiving Donald distorts indubitable facts, like who wrote The Art of the Deal.
That Big Dave distorts facts like that may indicate why he finds affinities with Deceiving Donald.
Does it take a very high IQ to be that deceiving?
> It was obvious.
Check out the pinned tweet:
https://twitter.com/realDenaldTrump
Here’s what’s even more obvious:
https://twitter.com/PolitiFact/status/755069775550701569
Big Dave trying to sell teh Donald’s truthworthiness – only at Judy’s.
Schwartz purports that he (Schwartz) filled the book with lies, lies of omission, misdirection, and exaggeration. He also writes that The Donald was unwilling to contribute much in the way of answering questions and changed very little of what Schwartz wrote but rather only crossed out some criticisms Trump had made of people in the past whom he no longer wished to criticize.
Schwartz either lied then or he’s lying now or both. The only we know for sure is Schwartz is a liar. Thanks for playing. Better luck next time.
These NATO countries are not spending their fair share on defense
http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/08/news/nato-summit-spending-countries/
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/160708114244-chart-spending-percentage-gdp-780×439.jpg
Shocking. Who knew?
/sarc
Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.
VIDEO: US-NATO Border Confrontation with Russia Risks Nuclear War and Loss of European Partners
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bh5pqJc5z-U
Other than the interests of the Military-Finance-Big Oil industrial complex, I don’t see how our permanent war in Eurasia, North Africa and the Middle East behooves the geopolitical interests of the United States.
Because of the shale revolution, the United States has a surfeit of natural gas, and North America is nearing oil independence. If not for the crash in oil prices, which stunted oil development in Canada, Mexico and the United States, North America would already be very close to achieving oil independence.
The net: We no longer need the oil and natural gas from that region of the world. So what are we fighting for?
Why is it incumbent on the United States to pay the price, in treasure and blood, to insure Europe’s energy supply?
Why can’t Europe work out its own energy supply problems?
And with Turkey looking increasingly unstable, the dream of a Qatar-Turkey-Europe natural gas pipeline looks more remote than ever.
http://i.imgur.com/YDRAA4W.png
VIDEO: Sheriff David Clarke: “Black Lives Matter” Are Purveyors Of A “Hateful, Violent Ideology”
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/07/17/sheriff_david_clarke_black_lives_matter_are_purveyors_of_a_hateful_violent_ideology.html
This is why we elected him to be our Commander & Chief.
Follow Me!
http://www.mrctv.org/blog/obama-police-can-make-job-being-cop-lot-safer-admitting-their-failures
Now is his opportunity to shine on the pages of history, yet to be written…
In the background heads are talking about the Trump Wall… if the crime rates and rents then fall will liberalism lose it’s rosy glow?
If everything happens like ‘he has said many times’… at least we have data from the original experiment to estimate between. This is science in the making.
https://politicalvelcraft.org/2015/08/22/how-general-eisenhower-solved-illegal-border-crossings-from-mexico/
Fascinating.
Obummer needs to put together a national effort to teach blacks how to get arrested and not resist arrest.
I may have missed the discussion somewhere, but what do y’all think about Obama’s JAMA paper?
http://academia.stackexchange.com/questions/72680/is-obamas-jama-paper-ok
Capt’nDallas
Thank you for the link and access for all of us to the article.
“Importance The Affordable Care Act is the most important health care legislation enacted in the United States since the creation of Medicare and Medicaid in 1965.”
And herein lie the answers as to why the POTUS would have had written for him, such a piece. He views his legacy as sand in an hourglass and time is running out. And as one grips a handful of sand from the beach tighter and tighter, the sand runs out more quickly. Obama is imbued with his own self-importance.
Obama rightly sees that ACA is under attack from whom he ascribes to special interests and hyper-partisanship. And, as costs of joining exchanges and co-pays escalate, and insurance options dwindle as insurance companies withdraw having lost money on the chronically ill who signed up and the Federal subsidies will mostly go away after 3 years, the ultimate failure of ACA has been its inability to control health care costs as they currently escalate at a rate greater than before. Manufactured data does not change the money side of health care operating in a parallel universe from the architects of its supposed reform.
About 70% of health care costs are related to those who are chronically ill. Making it illegal to consider pre-existing condition in the pricing of health care premiums means that the cost shift onto those who are well is now even greater than before. In addition, there is the high cost of dying, mostly by the elderly, dying in hospital with all its associated risks. Medicaid is being scavenged by nursing home costs and Medicare is shouldering a greater burden of cancer treatment care.
The ACA was yet another attempt to have a system to ration care just like the rest of the developed countries do, and, by the way, the reason their health care costs are less. Rationing care but not telling people the Federal government is rationing care is the trick.
Finally, who is JAMA’s audience? medical practitioners. Obama does not need to lecture medical providers upon the vicissitudes of billing and eligibility checking, and a host of other record keeping requirements. Rather, I believe Obama wants to use this medical journal article as a cudgel against nay sayers, just as he uses/abuses his office advocating for drastic and unpopular measures regarding climate change. No different. Same old. Same old.
JAMA is an old and respected medical journal laced with opinion pieces here and there so when the POTUS calls to say he wants to write an opinion piece on his legacy issue, no worries. Just another person with another opinion. Right or wrong, even the POTUS is entitled to his opinion.
RiHo08, The thing that gets me is attempt at appearing to be a “science” paper. Other than staffers, it wasn’t peer reviewed.
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/sifter/obama-first-president-publish-academic-paper
It isn’t poorly written, but language like “Sharply decreasing from 19.1% in 2010 to 17.8% in 2015” isn’t what I would expect from academics without some agenda. :) Clinton and even Bush have been published in journals as opinion pieces,but this is shooting for something a tad higher.
Capt’nDallas
The thing that gets me is attempt at appearing to be a “science” paper.
“United States Health Care Reform: Progress to Date and Next Steps” dives into the recommendations Obama has for the next president to improve the U.S. health care system and assesses the Affordable Care Act”
Obama is addressing future Presidents of the United States. In part, he is addressing a future much as Dwight Eisenhower spoke to the dangers of the Military Industrial Complex and the distorting of science by government funding. Obama just doesn’t have the credentials of an IKE, nor the eloquence of a JFK. Obama is at the tail end of a career do nothing politician and as an example of what not to do as a President.
Captain Smith on the Titanic realized what he had done wrong, the miss calculations and opportunities, and the inevitable decision to: go down with the ship. Failure as President speaks more loudly than failure at being a captain of a large ship. Obama’s tenure as President is about as illuminating as William Henry Harrison. Not much.
Those who rallied around Obama will remain disappointed, for as a President, he remains a dud. As for Obamacare and the ACA, his failure in the very beginning to be materially involved, has lead to his signature legislative endeavor to become a bust.
What a pity. So much has been riding on a charismatic leader who in reality was a legislative closet politician.
RiH,
At least Harrison had the excuse of dying shortly after taking office.
All Obama has is that smug look.
Thanks Dallas. I’m a stackexchange.com member. Also a member of a companion group stackoverflow.com. Both are computer terms. A stack is a common temporary storage structure on almost all microprocessors to the best of my knowledge. A stack exchange is usually the swapping of one stack for another in a context switch. A stack overflow is a common software bug where the stack’s capacity has been exceeded.
Didn’t know about it, but it was a pretty interesting site.
A cashier at a Taco Bell in Alabama wouldn’t serve cops
http://edition.cnn.com/2016/07/18/us/deputies-refused-service-taco-bell-trnd/index.html
http://i.imgur.com/uK0N6ac.png
Death Donald:
https://twitter.com/nowthisnews/status/752623809203625986
Willard
You are right. Here is a useful article from the BBC complete with interactive graph. Police Killings are down but are down dramatically if an increase in police numbers is taken into account
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-36826297
tonyb
From your article, TonyB:
Audit Donald may need a wall around those data.
NYPD Donald:
https://twitter.com/Wonkette/status/752533033018875906
Woebegone Willard: https://adblockplus.org/
There seems to be some common ground in at least one area. If not in Congress the at least apparently to some extent the parties and candidates: http://thehill.com/policy/finance/288148-gop-platform-to-call-for-return-to-glass-steagall
G/S not going to work anymore. The financial system has ‘evolved’. Nobody is going to disconnect the economic models from the system. I once thought the very existence of negative interest rates was a software failure mode. – But here we are. The world hasn’t exploded so observations trump theory. Technology advances across all human endeavors and financial systems are perhaps the pinnacle of this phenomenon.
Getting rid of GS is one of the myriads of things the astoundingly brilliant and effective President Clinton did right, but good luck selling that.
Danny Thomas:
Something you can do with your own money. Invest in low cost S & P 500 and/or total bond index funds. No banker is getting my money to fritte away with some pie in the sky investment. I trust companies like Google not to be taken by these charlatans.
Paul Ryan Says Poor Are Victims, But Blames Them For Being Poor
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dave-johnson/paul-ryan-says-poor-are-v_b_11058474.html
“Ryan is repeating the old “personal responsibility” language conservatives have developed to shift people’s thinking about government and democracy away from the idea that We the People are in this together, toward a selfish idea that we should all be on our own. Of course, this leaves individuals defenseless against the powerful forces of aggregated wealth and power.”
Now Johnson is saying the poor are victims of aggregated wealth and power. What happened to plain old wealth? Wealthy people are now aggregaters. Farmers aggregate land, house builders aggregate wood. Carmakers, metal and plastic. What do governments aggregate? Things that used to be our rights. We’ll take care of that, don’t worry.
Should we blame the poor for being poor? I’d say it’s half their fault and half the government’s fault. But in some cases it’s 110% their fault using Schmidt’s attribution methods. You can lead the unemployed to a job, but you can’t make them work.
“Should we blame the poor for being poor?”
Sure, the Anti-Rent War is an example of where the poor got tired of being poor and the tenant farmer/share cropper is an example of where the poor became accustom to poverty. By the way, there isn’t anything wrong with poverty, chastity and obedience, at times they are even admirable qualities. Bitching about them and not doing anything though is a problem.
Capt’nDallas
One might reach back to George Bernard Shaw and his description of the “deserving poor” and the “undeserving poor.” Deserving poor were the aged, disabled, and temporarily down on their luck. The underserving poor were those who could but didn’t work.
I am of the mind whereby social engineering and welfare have “stunted” those undeserving poor into an economic model where the pain of economic mediocrity feels OK.
I think that Arthur Schopenhauer’s statement: “Pain makes man think; thought makes man wise, and wisdom makes life more endurable” sums my belief regarding social welfare, and without some pain along the way, slough and feelings of bitterness towards others with wealth and a sense of entitlement tends to develop.
The pain of economic uncertainty is a stimulant for most people. Blunting that economic pain with social welfare condemns some to a life of ‘quiet desperation” per Henry Thoreau.
Personally, I wish there were a way to enhance people’s lives, particularly children without the drag of dependency and depression of social welfare.. No easy way forward as far as I am concerned.
RiHo08 said:
I certainly agree with this sentiment.
It was undoubtedly easier to ferret out free-riders — not only those at the bottom of the pecking order, but those at the top as well — when man lived in smaller societies with more face-to-face contact. It’s far more difficult in the vast, large-scale societies of tens or hudreds of millions of individuals that most of us live in today.
But even in those smaller-scale societies the definition of free-rider varied significanlty between cultures.
In our own Western Civilization, we experiened a sea change in how we define free-riders, and what do do about them, in the 16th century:
RiHo08,
The rise and fall of the Dutch Empire is key to understanding our current predicament. It was the second of the four great global, hegemonic empires — Spanish, Dutch, British, American — which ruled over the earth since the advent of the Reniassance. And more importanlty, Dutch capitalism was the precursor to our brand of Anglo-American capitalism that we practice today.
Much to their credit, the early Dutch elite did practice what they preached. They lived an austere, unpretentious lifestyle, worked extremely hard, and were highly productive, as Calvinism and the new humanist doctrine would have it.
“By 1648 the Dutch were indisputably the greatest trading nation in the world,” C.R. Boxer writes in The Dutch Seaborne Empire, 1600-1800.
However, the “transition from a merchant oligarchy to a rentier oligarcy,” Boxer exlains, was not long in coming. It required only “three generations.” Those who presided over the Dutch empire went from a generation of “burgher-oligarchs and merchant-adventurers” to an idle and largely unproductive dynastic elite, living off its rents, and aspiring to “marry into the urban patriciate.” And it became incredibly corrupt, though the dynastic ambitions were probably more corrosive to the society:
And as the Dutch elite grew wealthier, more ostentatious, more corrupt, and more dynastic, its treatment of workers grew much harsher:
RiHo08, one of the things that aggravates the hell out of me is there is no real safety net for small property owners. During the mortgage bubble there were millions of foreclosures on lower end homes that owners could have stayed in until the recovery provided there was a reasonable homestead exception or bankruptcy protection for the paycheck to paycheck population. In order to be “impoverished” you have to lose everything and it is much more cost effective to not kick people out of humble homes.
Capt’nDallas
“there is no real safety net for small property owners”
I don’t know yet I speculate that the preceding “savings & loan” meltdown, where the Feds had to bail out a number of risk-takers that the mean-face of “let the chips fall where they may” permeated the culture of bankers regarding poor people with mortgages “under water.” When the same mean-face was turned to big banks and several did fail, it was then that the consequences of loans securitized by non-understandable debt instruments became clear and the rush to prop up “banks too big to fail” occurred.
The small amount of money it would have taken to “tidy over” the poor householders would have been infinitesimal compared the trillions pumped into big banks.
I agree with you that it would have made sense to keep most of the poor in their homes instead of insisting on foreclosure. There were a few gamers whom I would label undeserving middle-class who had second and third mortgages on speculative property that should have gone down anyway.
I wonder what will happen to the poor mortgage holder at the next financial down turn. Many of those were/are black, and, certainly having a black POTUS didn’t help them at all. My fervent hope is that the credit unions that seem to have taken over the services of the local savings and loan banks, will not be the next symbolic lesson of what not to do.
Glenn Stehle
Thank you for the history lesson on charitable giving during the Middle Ages. I hadn’t quite put the interplay and then evolution of charity and alms together as succinctly as your quotes. I was somewhat aware of the decline and fall of the Dutch trading empire, yet, the mean-spirited treatment of the poor from a Calvinistic point of view is not all that surprising.
I am at a loss when thinking about GBS’s “undeserving poor.” Maybe the trend in recreational marijuana use and reopening the opium dens would be a good place to start. Make it cheap, readily available, say every street corner, death sentences to dealers selling to kids and maybe some other draconian measures just to be sure.
Yeah. A fuzzy picture is starting to emerge, gain clarity, like out of a mind fog.
Trump to NAACP:
I am busy.
The NAACP And Black Lives Matter Are Talking Past Each Other
“The NAACP’s national convention in Philadelphia highlighted a fundamental split between the old-guard of the civil rights movement and Black Lives Matter on the most important issue to black Americans.”
What upside was there for Trump with the NAACP?
I heard Hillary yesterday, couldn’t get to the TV fast enough to change the channel, talk about wanting to get black men into jobs programs after being released from prison.
Great. I have a good slogan for her: Use a gun, get a job!
I mocked this concept decades ago where some bleeding heart proposed college programs in prison. This was during the era where “Use a gun, go to prison” was popularized by law & order elected officials. I changed it to “Use a gun, go to college” to express the imbecility behind it. The time to intervene is before the crime. After the crime it’s just a reward for committing it.
What I DO support is “Use a gun, go to war”. I saw plenty of hood rats of all colors transformed by service in my beloved United States Marine Corps. I am 110% behind judges who are willing to commute a prison sentence into a military enlistment. The key here is the when a person enters the military they give up their constitutional right to due process and must answer to a different set of laws called “The Uniform Code of Military Justice” or UCMJ for short. There’s no constitutional revolving door for military crimes and military prisons are harsh. College programs are available free in the military and it’s a job too with decent pay and top shelf retirement benefits.
We should loosen up enlistment restrictions (which currently ban non-high school graduates and those with criminal histories) and encourage judges to, at their discretion, mete out sentences colloquially known as “Four in the Corps or Ten in the Pen”. The transformation from juvenile criminal thug to military man is a beautiful thing to witness.
> What I DO support is “Use a gun, go to war”. I saw plenty of hood rats of all colors transformed by service in my beloved United States Marine Corps.
Right on:
http://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/headlines/20160715-soldiers-criticize-army-s-handling-of-dallas-shooter-after-underwear-incident.ece
Johnson was Army reserve. I specifically said 4 years in the Marine Corps. Pay attention.
Gavin Long, the Baton Rouge cop killer, was a former sergeant in the Marine Corps. I didn’t say it worked every time. Be very wary of pissing off Marine sergeants.
The point wasn’t about cop killers though it was about what to do with inner city hood rats to break the school-to-prison pipeline. Send them into the military. It’ll save many and perhaps enough to fix the problem.
David Springer, Sergeant, USMC 1974-1978
> Gavin Long, the Baton Rouge cop killer, was a former sergeant in the Marine Corps.
Very good, Big Dave. Now you’re paying attention.
Here’s what you said, BTW:
This doesn’t apply to Marine only. If this is key, then your “but Marine only” amounts to special pleading.
Thanks for playing.
The USMC is looking for young people who have done well in school, have no drug or alcohol problems, and who are morally opposed to violating the law. A prospective recruit with a criminal record can apply for a waiver, but there are a lot of tough hoops through which to jump. Very different than the Corps of lore.
Yes JCH I said restrictions would need to be loosened at least when a judge sees fit to order it. The Corps did fine for over 200 years turning juvenile delinquents into men. What changed such that it wouldn’t work again?
From the article:
…
The FBI Announces Gangs Have Infiltrated Every Branch Of The Military
…
http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-gang-assessment-us-military-2011-10
“The time to intervene is before the crime. After the crime it’s just a reward for committing it.”
Thanks Dave. Glad you thought this out long ago and thanks for sharing the concept here.
Oh. By the way, and idea if Trump has a policy/plan w/r/t this? I mean, after all, both you and Hillary do.
Bill Mare, Cops should pull in what comics on TV get paid in Hollywood.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/culture/karen-townsend/2016/07/19/bill-maher-cops-getting-shot-just-part-job
Just to be, fair.
Arch,
Good thing we don’t look to ‘tv personalities’ for guidance huh?
Oh, wait…..
Yes, he does have a plan. Go to his website.
David,
Show me. Don’t tell me. I see a link to a 44 second video on his site and there’s no plan in that. Unless you’re suggesting that “giving them more authority and respect” is a plan.
Dodgy Donald’s military deeds:
http://www.salon.com/2016/06/02/donald_trump_draft_dodger_partner/
Big Dave said something about “judges who are willing to commute a prison sentence into a military enlistment.”
Your history of making faces and spitting out anything I find for you precludes me doing it again. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice and … uh … never fool me again.
David,
It’s either there, or it’s not. Care to show me? I told you what I found, and crystal balls don’t seem to function well here (mine any more than yours). In order make sure I don’t ‘assume’ anything, maybe you could put yourself out this one time by making an exception. Unless……..
Big Dave,
Had you not yourself volonteered that the Baton Rouge was a marine, I would gladly have done it for you. At least you did not fall into that one. Perhaps it means you’re learning something.
You now have to reconcile your praise of the military and the fact that both the Dallas and the Baton Rouge shooters were “transformed by service.” The psychological impact of military training and of going to war is quite well documented. You might not wish to go there, but hey, you’re the IQ here.
When will you issue your IQ certificates, BTW?
So three cheers for your Use a gun, go to war.
So Trump was just like Bush and Clinton in managing to avoid going to Vietnam. Shocker. I already knew that. I think I can even recall how. Off the top of my head – got the usual college deferments for 4 – 6 years which is about as long as a privileged white kid could get away with. Then Trump got some medical deferment. Something wrong with his feet. Probably mutant small toes. Clinton fled the country when his deferments ran out and Bush’s daddy got him a cushy job as a fighter pilot in the National Guard that he didn’t have to show up for more often than it took to get enough training to keep his wings and I think the last 9 months he didn’t even do that. Let his medical elapse maybe.
Trump did however attend a military academy and was the top dawg. Also quite the athlete. Check out all that he played. No wonder he developed a taste for fashion models. He goes for quality time instead of quantity time with women. Gives him more time to work. A rich famous teetotaler workaholic real estate developer with fashion model girlfriends and wives. Perfect. Just what the doctor ordered.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/07/21/01/2AB595B200000578-3168648-Donald_Trump_Senior_Year_1964_nNew_York_Military_Academy_Cornwal-a-18_1437436954344.jpg
http://popularmilitary.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Trump-in-Military-school.jpg
Well done David. Now you’ve made a case that being a draft dodger is worthy. Or at least that since ‘others’ did it, your guy is okay for doing it too!
Do you blush when you think about your bromance?
I suppose when I run for president I could produce SAT and GCT test scores. College transcripts and tax records too. I held a secret clearance at one time too so the FBI should have lots of stuff on file.
When are you going to stop being an anonymous coward?
Willard, when you talked about Baton Rouge being a Marine, did you actually mean a Marion?
That’s Trump front center leading the squad by the way.
Leading them? Which direction? He didn’t go anywhere near a conflict (unless you count hazing).
Is this the guy you followed in your service?
Good one, mosomoso!
You can call her Jean-Marine.
Danny he’s going to talk about all that stuff in a really long address on Thursday. Tune in. I’m done spoon feeding you. How many times will I need to repeat that do you think?
David,
I’ll tune in.
But “he’s going to talk about all that stuff in a really long address on Thursday.” One Mr. Flynn might suggest that’s a deflection, denial, or diversion.
Did I misread your having said I should see his website for the content to which you referred?
Oh, and this is what was coming if you fell for the “prison sentence”:
http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/news/a44128/donald-trump-plane-not-registered/
Delta Donald will never get the 3 years prison sentence lower citizens would get, and thus would never have to deal with Big Dave’s desideratum of turning prison time into military time.
Willard, don’t know if old Le Pen appreciates being kicked out of the party by Marine. And now the creepy old Hebrew-basher has to live with revelations that grand-daughter Marion is the daughter of a Mossad agent.
Marine, by the way, is a party girl and republican, while Marion is an earnest Catholic with suspected royalist tendencies.
Scratch a conservative family and you’ll find deep differences. It’s a freedom thing.
Marion, at age 26 and looking as she does, is a prime candidate for patronising. They only try it once. Just ask Alain Juppé. Ouch.
It might not be wise to portray Marion as a victim, mosomoso, as she’s not immune to play the age card.
Whatever one’s look, 20 hours flights are hard on relationships.
Marion a “victim”, Willard? It’s like my “adoration” of Marion. Nobody says it, but you warn against it anyway.
You’ll note that her reference to Juppe’s age was strictly in regard to those denying the validity of older people’s votes in Brexit. A good point. The rest is just interpretation by the finger-wagging luvvie journalist. (God save us from the French variety of that lot, eh?)
Next gotcha.
Ad homs fall off me like water off a duck’s back, clowns.
Read harder, Wee Willard. This is what I wrote:
“mete out sentences colloquially known as “Four in the Corps or Ten in the Pen”.”
Either read harder or ask what “four in the corps” refers to if you are unsure. Thanks for being wrong and doubling down on it. Chump.
Danny you seem to have replaced “speech had parts similar to Michelle Obama’s 2008 speech” with “very same words”. Where did you get this new information?
Here’s a plethora of articles discussing Trump’s plans for inner city yutes:
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=trump%20inner%20city
You do know how to google, right? And read? Sure you do. I must therefore conclude you aren’t interested in knowing and are just trying to yank my chain. I’m not going for your concern trolling, dikwad.
David,
From the very first link from (and thank you for) your google search: “Trump used a term that generally refers to low-income urban neighborhoods. What he meant by rebuilding them is unclear.” Unclear?
“Trump said that Clinton wants to spend hundreds of billions on refugees and for that money, “we could rebuild every inner city in America.” Trump’s campaign provided no supporting numbers.” No supporting numbers?
“We rate this claim Pants on Fire.”
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2016/jun/22/donald-trump/trump-wrong-clintons-refugee-plan-would-cost-more-/
But there’s probably a problem with the reporting.
> Nobody says it, but you warn against it anyway.
Come on, mosomoso. PeterD praises French women, you come up with a video of the younger Le Pen with an incomplete transcript and nothing more than usual “either your with us or against us” crap. Then you distance her from her aunt, Madame Frexit herself, not without mentioning “patronising” and the way she looks.
It’s easier to fill these dots then your favorite Catholic’s call for indefinite “actions” in her war against “islamism.”
There’s no valid point behind Marion’s “should we forbid Juppé’s right to vote” in a referendum, which is indeed victimizing. For more context, please refer to Courage Fillion’s point. I do hope you’ll appreciate “capilotractés” as much as I do.
The words you claim are missing are in the transcript. Fact you got wrong. Just like you corrected me over Marion being Marine. Fact you got wrong.
The rest is opinion. Forgive me if I don’t chase another link till you check your claim about the words being missing from the transcript.
> This is what I wrote: “mete out sentences colloquially known as “Four in the Corps or Ten in the Pen”.
I know what you wrote, Big Dave. Repeating it doesn’t address what I did write in return. You also forget that what is less colloquially known as “waivers” is something that has been brought up out of necessity:
http://www.salon.com/2006/02/02/waivers/
Using prisoners as soldiers is far from being new. What’s a bit newer is drug corporations hiring American soldiers as assassins:
https://twitter.com/heyjturner/status/3260403523
America’s not exceptional anymore.
> Forgive me if I don’t chase another link till you check your claim about the words being missing from the transcript.
Done.
Your turn.
Danny, the low income housing and inner city revitalization situation is odd. In 2011, “low income” housing was running at over $430,000 per unit but could be built for ~$100,000per unit. Just changing the specifications so primarily small builders/contractors get a larger share of the projects, makes a bigger dent in unemployment and local economic impact. You can also increase the number of units that can be bought by residents, which can double or triple impact of the funding. For example the average Habitat for Humanity unit costs about $80,000 and they don’t have a major delinquency problem.
I can see properly spent money going 4 to 6 times further than the current SNAFU system.
http://realestate.wharton.upenn.edu/review/index.php?article=112
Capt.
Thanks. Looks like a very in depth read. Will be on my near term list as improvement in the housing issue will likely reduce stress on other areas as a side benefit.
I appreciate the reference.
That’s right. The words were in the transcript…but in a furtive way. I actually read the words and missed the furtiveness. Having had a fair bit to do with translation, I’m never surprised by rough edges in YouTubes and foreign films.
Interesting to hear that Marion’s my favourite Catholic and that in pointing out family differences I must be unconsciously distancing her from Madame Frexit because I…well, I just do furtive stuff like that without knowing. I need someone to fill my dots, hear my dog whistles. Oh come on. You know what I mean.
Okay, so Marion did indeed say that the argument against older voices for Brexit could be applied to Juppe. We’ve now read that at two of your links. I think it’s a point well made, you don’t. Fillon shocks nobody by not agreeing. You and others think it’s victimisation and mockery of Juppe. I would call that capilotracte. There may be an element of gotcha…but that’s something you couldn’t possibly object to.
> I actually read the words and missed the furtiveness.
And I actually listened to what she said, which was said at the beginning of 0:47, so more than one second earlier than the text. Francophones don’t need to read the transcript. Populist crap is easy to get.
It’s capilotracté, BTW.
Dudeism can’t cover for Marion’s caricature of Courage Fillion’s point: young voters are the ones who will pay for their elders’ vote.
And yes, Marion, at age 26 and looking as she does, is a prime candidate for patronising is loud and clear.
She’s recently divorced, in case you’re interested to know.
I included the only link to the speech which had translation because many here don’t know French. Is that odd? I did not read the transcript till you called my attention to it. You read the transcript, Willard. You populist reader of transcripts, you!
And I’m aware that capilotracte, a word you seem so proud to know, should have an accent on it, as should Juppe. I even write El Nino without the accent. I’m a lazy boy when blogging…but I’ve been able to read/ translate some dozen languages without descending to pedantry. You know what I mean. It’s loud and clear. Fill the dots. No amount of HuffPoism can conceal the truth.
> You read the transcript […]
I actually read the subtitles when she was talking, mosomoso. And yes, I know that Marion’s not Marine. That was just my way of reminding you who was the boss.
Talk about pedandry.
> Sheer boilerplate[.]
Try with a software, AK:
https://twitter.com/BenMStreeter/status/755579250250571776
Perhaps you’d rather fact check Mrs Degree Donald’s herself:
https://twitter.com/clevelanddotcom/status/755430951715540992
that is the equivalent of a Willard concession speech.
You’re right, Cap’n.
So many times it happens too fast. You trade your passion for glory. I’m losing grip on the dreams of ClimateB*ll’s past, while I must fight just to keep them alive.
It’s the eye of the Big Cat. It’s the thrill of the fight. Rising up to the crap of Denizens. And the last one, Big Dave, stalks me in the night. He’s watching all despite AdBlockPlus.
Make America Ditto Again. Vote for Ditto Donald.
No Wishful Willard, I quite happily let Adblock Plus do its job. I wish WordPress had a killfile. You’d be my first [plonk]. Seriously. You’re an annoyance. Nothing more.
Wallowing Willard, what part of “four in the corps” do you not understand?
Good luck with the spoon feeding, Dallas. Wear a raincoat and eye protection.
Ditto Donald:
https://twitter.com/TIME/status/755430757817024516
LOL. From within the Time article: ” It’s just another example, as far as we’re concerned, that when Hillary Clinton is threatened by a female, the first thing she does is try to destroy the person.”
Pot, meet kettle.
Kettle’s name’s Jill:
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/20/us/politics/melania-trump-speech.html
Michelle Obama and Melania Trump’s speechwriters went to the same schools. Duh. The things I have to put up with from intellectual inferiors.
Do either of you two clowns have a point to make about it?
The point I made, David, is the use of the very same words which aptly describe Mr. Trump and has nothing to do with the speech or writers.
” It’s just another example, as far as we’re concerned, that when Hillary Clinton is threatened by a female, the first thing she does is try to destroy the person.”
Signed,
Intellectual inferior.
But of course was too ign0rant of history to notice the resemblance to about a zillion boilerplate political speeches going back to
19201820.Pfui!
> But of course was too ign0rant of history to notice the resemblance to about a zillion boilerplate political speeches going back to
19201820.Go right ahead, AK. Teach Jill.
While we wait with baited breath, some science:
https://twitter.com/HuffPostUK/status/755399972363853824
Oh no. If the MSM (along with trash-press like Huff-Po) want to put their foot in their mouth, why should I interfere?
> why should I interfere
Because you already did, by claiming something you don’t seem to have the fortitude to back up, AK.
Nope.
I just pointed out boilerplate. Nothing others won’t be doing.
Just don’t have the time to play with Google, wading through all the recent references to the “plagiarism”.
Scientific prediction: it is boilerplate, and once the MSM has put their foot far enough into it, somebody in the Trump campaign (who has access to LexisNexis, which I don’t) will document how often various combinations of those symbols have been used, to make them look silly.
We can wait and see how it turns out.
Of course, it’s likely the MSM won’t report on their own embarrassment.
Willard
you will be aware of political plagiarism through the ages, of which the Guardian give a few examples
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/19/short-history-political-plagiarism-melania-trump
tonyb
Tony b,
In case you had any second thoughts about Brexit, and what the Eurocrats and your own British traitors are up to, I wanted to point out this video.
Yanis Varoufakis was Greece’s finance minister during the confrontation Greece had with the Eurocrats last year. He kind of embellishes his own roll a bit to downplay how naive he was going in, and how badly he fumbled the ball, but nevertheless his testimony is a real eye opener as to just how dictatorial, tyrannical and anti-democratic the Euro masters are.
It was to be expected, TonyB, as Discourse Donald already declared being an afficionado:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/243365239196876801?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw
> I just pointed out boilerplate.
You spoke of a “resemblance to about a zillion boilerplate political speeches going back to
19201820.”You also claimed that Jarrrett Hill (and perhaps otters) were “too ign0rant of history.”
But now you turn all this into a prediction.
An interesting trick.
I predict you’ll use it again.
How about right now? I predict that if I’m wrong, a certain “never ending auditor” will be back to remind me of it.
Which might have some practical value, if same “never ending auditor” could be relied on to remind me when I’m right.
But I put the chances of that far lower than 50%. That would require integrity™.
> I predict that if I’m wrong […]
Your prediction can’t be wrong on any “because, boilerplate” prediction unless you specify the boilerplate first, AK.
The trick is to turn the claim into an empty prediction to evade having to substantiate it.
Nice try, though.
Keep grasping at those straws, Willard. Pretty soon, you’ll have enough to make a really nice hat.
How about all the bolded text here. Specific enough for you?
Nothing empty about it.
I grew up in the United States, so I heard boiler-plate guff like that in political speeches since I was in Jr. High.
But maybe it’s not so common these days, with progressives and all.
Well, like I said, I’m just too lazy to wade through all the spam to document it. IMO I could. We’ll just have to see if somebody in the Trump campaign doesn’t go to the effort.
“Scientific prediction: it is boilerplate”
She starts out
“From a young age, my parents impressed on me the values that you work hard for what you want in life: “
My early experiences. It made me who I am. This is supposed to be personal, not boilerplate. And not something you got off the internet.
> I’m just too lazy […]
Yet here you are, yet again indulging in a quote fest.
Try maths:
https://twitter.com/teegstar/status/755575743019556864
Boilerplate. Pushing the aucience’s buttons.
Now you’re just being silly. It was boilerplate in Julius Caesar’s day.
Sheer boilerplate, with appropriate names plugged in.
> Sheer boilerplate [.]
https://twitter.com/SamuelAAdams/status/755434611103203328
The more they pull this ly1ng cr@p, the more votes they get for Trump.
I’m not surprised the MSM has become so arrogant they think they can pull this stuff. I wonder what’s going to happen after Trump gets elected?
> The more they pull this ly1ng cr@p […]
Another checker:
https://twitter.com/iMac__/status/755406173902372864
Showing that this tool is lying might be hard.
How about a prediction, AK?
The thing to do would be to enter the phrases and see how many hits you get. Word is bond gives me 13,000,000. Work hard to get ahead gives me 91,000,000. Much ado about nothing gives me 3,500,000.
It isn’t plagiarism unless there was intent to plagiarize.
> The thing to do would be to enter the phrases and see how many hits you get.
Checkers are better than that already, stevenreincarnated.
Ask Moshpit.
It looks pretty weak to me as phrases you read and hear all the time, but whatever turns your crank have at it. My parents always stressed getting a good education. Get a good education 8,500,000 hits. Not even as common as the ones she used.
> It looks pretty weak to me […]
I know the drill, stevenreincarnated. Next, you’ll ask for all the codes.
Look. Plagiarism is something that has already been studied quite a lot. Stringology ain’t that complex.
Try this instead:
https://twitter.com/c_burch/status/755594435803643906
LOL Willard, I don’t need the codes. Even if she did plagiarize it will be forgotten by next week as inconsequential.
The whole masquarade is inconsequential, stenvereincarnated:
https://twitter.com/thenib/status/755597306070638592
Two more sentences:
https://twitter.com/the_ice_man_24/status/755603943846141952
Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden all accused of plagiarism. Who remembers? Who cares? Dead issue by next week is my model’s projection.
AK,
“Boilerplate. Pushing the aucience’s buttons.”
It was supposed to be presenting Melania Trump. Who she really is. And she starts by telling us what she was taught by her parents.
I think it was WC Fields who said what he learnt:
“The key to success is honesty and integrity. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made.”
“Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden all accused of plagiarism. Who remembers?”
Well, Biden’s case was rather similar. The text concerned was much briefer, but similarly was about his origins, part lifted from Kinnock. But it knocked him out of the race. And was here in 2008.
“Clinton, Bush, Obama, and Biden all accused of plagiarism. Who remembers?”
I see it’s still remembered in 2015. Trump, talking to Hugh Hewitt, August, about the prospect of facing Biden as candidate:
Willard, “Maths you can use! Astrophysicist @rerutled calculates probability @MELANIATRUMP didn’t plagiarise @MichelleObama http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-07-20/maths-on-melania-trump-speech/7643658 …”
I loved this one. “your word is your bond” would typically proceed an explanation of what it means, “keep your promises” “The only limit” would typically proceed the limitation, “your willingness to work”. So without getting into too much detail, the “Astrophysicist” has his estimate off by a couple of orders of magnitude, which is about par for the course :)
Biden was accused of a lot more than one case of plagiarism. I suspect low poll numbers had more to do with him dropping out of the race than the plagiarism accusation but have been unable to find actual poll numbers at the time. I did run across one article that stated he had been running at around the 2% mark through most of 1987. I doubt the one case everyone heard the most about was actually more than a mistake by a mistake prone Biden. If he were actually plagiarizing then he would have had to believe nobody would do even the most basic of fact checking like if he were the first in the family to get a degree and the son of coal miners.
> So without getting into too much detail, the “Astrophysicist” has his estimate off by a couple of orders of magnitude […]
I understand, Capt’n. I would love to show you my proof that God exists and my solution to all the remaining Millenium prize problems, but I can’t get into too much details either.
***
> If he were actually plagiarizing then he would have had to believe nobody would do even the most basic of fact checking […]
Tell that to those who wrote at #GOPinCLE that Mrs Ditto Donald has an architecture degree:
http://www.snopes.com/melania-trump-architecture-degree/
The overall campain of Deceit Donald shows the limitations of any counterfactual involving fact-checking.
Willard, “I understand, Capt’n. I would love to show you my proof that God exists and my solution to all the remaining Millenium prize problems, but I can’t get into too much details either.”
Unlike your religious strawman, this is a simple exercise in probability. Language is not purely random and the Astrophysicist’s choice of how to break things down into phrase segments is arbitrary. A less arbitrary method is to use sentences or larger sentence fragments. Prior to making the comparison between Melania and Michelle, Michelle’s speech would be put in the plagiarism grinder to determine just how original her speech was. That provides a baseline. Then with 5 commonly used phrases, comparing sequencing of those phrases would give you a probability of 1 in 120. No arbitrary assumptions required.
Of course this is opposed to your political agenda :)
Cap’n –
==> Then with 5 commonly used phrases,.. .==>
Seriously? No mention of sequence and proximity?
Must be a coincidence, eh?
It’s an insignificant issue, IMO, but watching the hilarious arguments in defense is what becomes meaningful.
Willard, you get too excited about this stuff. It isn’t going to matter. Nobody was going to vote for Trump because his wife has a degree and nobody isn’t going to vote for Trump because she said she did and doesn’t should that be the case. What is going to happen is a backlash on the left for picking on the pretty lady with the cute accent.
A new, all time high, record smashing display of inanity. Congratulations are in order for the libtards. You’ve outdone yourselves, and that wasn’t easy.
Vote Trump. The not extremely careless candidate.
Thank you for telling me how I feel and how I should feel instead, stevenreincarnated.
Here’s something else that may not matter about Diabolical Donald:
https://twitter.com/jpbpunzalan/status/755816149049159680
Let’s hope there won’t be too much backlash about that one too.
An excerpt for Big Dave:
http://time.com/4413658/donald-trump-harry-potter-study
Make America Diabolical Again. Vote Diabolical Donald.
> Language is not purely random and the Astrophysicist’s choice of how to break things down into phrase segments is arbitrary.
That’s not what Bob did, Cap’n. He simply calculated the ikelihood that fourteen distinct phrases from two texts can be in the exact same order, Cap’n. If you can’t come up with your own solution to this Very Difficult Problem, ask Sir Rud about his special formula. He might need to break some Harvard Graduate Econometric Oath, but if he esteems you like I do, he’ll consider breaking it.
Nameless one, “==> Then with 5 commonly used phrases,.. .==>
Seriously? No mention of sequence and proximity?
Must be a coincidence, eh?”
The Astrophysicist picked “distinct” phrases like “your achievements”, “your dreams” and “in this nation” from a political campaign speech. What are the odds?
Willard, “He simply calculated the ikelihood that fourteen distinct phrases from two texts can be in the exact same order, Cap’n”
your achievements, your dreams, in this nation, our children etc.14 factorial. your dreams, your dreams, your dreams, your dreams ;;; is one of his probabilities. To boot, he arbitrarily determined what he thought were “distinct” phrases based on comparing just the test in question. I am pretty sure he could find that there is a 1 in a couple million chance that Rosalynn Carter plagiarism Michell with those “distinct” phrases for a political address.
Bob could for sure, Cap’n. And so do you, right after you’ve shown Denizens how Bob is off by “a couple of orders of magnitude.”
Meanwhile, something for your consideration:
http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/myl/languagelog/archives/003066.html
If Bob’s wrong about orders of magnitude, I duly submit that it may not be in the direction you’re implying.
Willard, “… if text was being composed at random, …” That is the caveat.
“Become that rare person where people know that your word is your bond and you’re going to do exactly what you say you’re going to do.”
Read more at: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/j/john_w_rogers_jr.html
your word is your bond followed by an explanation of what it means. Melania used “do what you say and keep your promises” Michelle used “do what you say you will do.” “your word in your bond” is not a Michelle original and people that use that cliche typically follow it with an explanation. So Bob used a known cliche, “your word is your bond” as his “distinct” evidence of plagiarism followed by some something else assuming Michelle was original. Now perhaps, John W. Rogers Jr. cribbed Michelle, but I doubt it.
btw, this article mentions false positives and negatives issues with plag checkers if you are interested. turnitin came up with 1 in a trillion some others were as high as 1 in 10 trillion. You are assuming Bob’s estimate is low for some reason I cannot decipher.
> your word is your bond followed by an explanation of what it means
I’m so excited when you get philosophical, Cap’n.
I’m so excited and I just can’t hide it.
I’m about to lose control and I think I like it.
I know, I know, I know, I know , I know I want you to get all philosophical, Cap’n.
Next time, please stick to thermodynamics. That’s what you do best.
If there remains any doubt about whether plagiarism occurred. This should settle it:
“Over the phone, she read me some passages from Mrs. Obama’s speech as examples. I wrote them down and later included some of the phrasing in the draft that ultimately became the final speech. I did not check Mrs. Obama’s speeches,” McIver said in the statement. “This was my mistake, and I feel terrible for the chaos I have caused Melania and the Trumps, as well as to Mrs. Obama. No harm was meant.”
Josh Marshall at TPM:
“The deeper story here is that Melania and Don Jr have seriously upped the ante for Trump on who he’ll plagiarize Thursday evening.”
Trump tweeted that her speech got more publicity that any speech in history. Attacking potential first ladies hasn’t been all that productive in the past :)
Thanks. So no plagiarism occurred. The short phrases everyone jumped on are far too common. Such as “my parents taught me that I had to work for what I wanted”. Give me a break. Look up trite and you’ll find that as an example.
Vote Trump. Uses his real name on the inter-tubes sometimes but not extremely carelessly.
Where are your IQ certificates, BIg Dave?
Here, have some Diffident Donald:
Collecting dust somewhere. I’ll do more to find them for a price. Where are you not too yellow to use your real name?
Please produce your IQ certificates, Big Dave.
Until then, no sale.
Wassa matter Big Dave? Your tricks for tracking down people’s identity don’t work when they really make an effort to hide?
Why not ask Steven Mosher for help. He seems to brag of some skill at identifying people by their word patterns.
I haven’t tried ID’ing Willard. I know how to identify idiosyncracies in written speech and google them. I do it routinely checking for plagiarism. Is that a challenge?
Not WRT me. Anybody who wants to know who I am can follow the link back to my blog, and go back a few posts to where I link to old stuff with my real name. (Before I found that old stuff, it was a little harder, but not that much.)
I just prefer not to splatter my name all over the internet these days.
I understand your trepidation. Cowardice is the new courage.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/06/29/europe-spooked-by-trump-just-nine-per-cent-believe-he-will-do-th/?utm_source=Pew+Research+Center&utm_campaign=26a4f3955d-Global_Attitudes_Release_7_287_31_2015&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_3e953b9b70-26a4f3955d-399622865
Yes. It’s Pew. And yes it’s the ‘Telegraph’. Probably a problem with the reporting.
Danny Thomas,
So now you’ve decided to join team Europe?
One thing about those pragmatic Europeans, they sure to heck know where their bread’s buttered. Imagine if they had to start anteing up their fair share for NATO:
https://i2.wp.com/i2.cdn.turner.com/money/dam/assets/160708114244-chart-spending-percentage-gdp-780×439.jpg
But even worse than that, imagine if the Europeans had to figure out for themselves how they’re going to break the stranglehold Putin has on their natural gas supply. They might even have to develop their own domestic energy sources.
And heck, doing that might put a dent into Team Green’s agenda, stuff like this:
Raw Data: The US Trade Deficit ex China ex Oil
http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2016/07/raw-data-us-trade-deficit-ex-china-ex-oil
http://www.motherjones.com/files/blog_trade_deficit_ex_china_ex_oil.jpg
Darn. Plagiarism by a politician’s wife? What next, accusations that some politicians are lying thieves, rogues, and vagabonds?
Surely not.
Scientists are far more ethical. Apparently, some definitely do not doctor data, fake experiment results, plagiarise the work of others. or commit fraud in order to obtain grant funds.
Totally more capable of running a country than elected politicians – in their own minds, of course! Politicians, just as with scientists, exhibit human traits. No better, no worse.
All is well. The universe is unfolding as it should.
Cheers.
> What next […]
Damning Donald:
https://twitter.com/g_mccray/status/755402150851780608
From the article (h/t jim):
“An astrophysicist has used the power of mathematics to prove Melania Trump’s speech was plagiarised from First Lady Michelle Obama.”
The power of mathematics! James Hansen was an astrophysicist – his use of the power of mathematics maybe left a bit to be desired. Gavin Schmidt is an actual mathematician, but he seemed to have difficulty using the power of mathematics to do appropriate statistical analyses, so I believe.
The power of mathematics? Why not just ask the woman? Or should she be tossed in jail because an astrophysicist used the power of mathematics? I’d say it seems to be much ado about nothing, but I’d probably be arrested for plagiarism, or illegal use of intellectual property or something!
What a pack of fatheads!
Cheers.
Lots of exclamations!
Why all these questions?
Because the world needs another theory:
https://twitter.com/estherlallen/status/755536068590575616
Two questions seeking answers. One rhetorical question. Three exclamation marks.
Yes, I realise this is all a bit much for a foolish Warmist to take in, all at once.
In typical foolish Warmist fashion, you ignore the questions, preferring to deny, divert, and confuse.
You seem to be denying that an astrophysicist