The Trombone Forum

Practice Break => Purely Politics => Topic started by: Russ White on Feb 05, 2016, 06:07AM



Title: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 05, 2016, 06:07AM
Here we go again. Third time is the charm, right? Since there were over 180K "views" and more than 160 pages of discussion, I am going to continue to post my op-ed columns. I have gotten much good feedback, and the ideas for future columns, from those discussions. Hopefully, we can minimize the poop slinging this time around.

FRACKING FLORIDUH!

Two types of people support fracking, extracting oil and gas by injecting water and chemicals into the earth to break them free; those who are ignorant of how the process works, and those who stand to benefit from it. No sane person who understands the process can possibly support it unless it is somehow lining their pockets.

The Florida House recently passed a bill that not only allows fracking in Florida, but restrains local communities from disallowing the practice in their backyards. It’s somewhat akin to allowing frackers to hold a gun to the head of communities in Florida and play Russian Roulette with them. It is reminiscent of the movie “Deer Hunter” where an American POW was forced to play the game for the benefit of gamblers.

It’s hard to know where to begin when listing the dangers and pitfalls, literally, of the process. One of the biggest is groundwater contamination. The water and sand injected into the fracking wells is rife with a chemical soup of unknown contaminants. No one can/will say for sure what they are because companies that engage in the practice have bought disclosure protection from our legislators under the guise of “proprietary formulation”.

Fracking in Florida, with our shallow aquifers, has the potential to turn the entire state into a poison soup making Flint look like a kid’s game. For those of us in West Volusia county, the chemical threat pales in the comparison to the geologic potentials.

Oklahoma, a fracking centerpiece, exists on a solid substrate made of igneous rock. Prior to fracking, any movement of the ground in the state was rare and minimal. Since fracking began, Oklahoma has seen an increase in earthquakes of magnitude of 3 or larger from 109 in 2013 to 585 in 2014 to 907 in 2015.

It is not hard to imagine a sinkhole the size of Lake Okeechobee opening in the limestone substrate of Central Florida as a result if fracking is allowed here. Fortunately the Florida Senate has yet to take up the bill, SB 318, ostensibly because the DEP has not yet weighed in during the process.

Feedback from concerned citizens is having an impact in slowing this process. Representives Costello and Santiago voted against the good of Floridians in helping to pass HB191. You can still call Senators to register your position.

Dorothy Hukill, 850-487-5008
Tom Lee, Chair, Appropriations committee – 866-583-2908


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: TromPhysics on Feb 05, 2016, 07:50AM
I wholeheartedly agree with all of the environmental concerns around fracking, but I've gotta say my biggest issue is still around what the government chooses to subsidise. Not only was the development of a new, environmentally harmful extraction technique of an environmentally harmful product subsidised by the government (see: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/23/fracking-developed-government_n_1907178.html) but we continue to subsidise some of the most profitable companies in the world (http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/may/12/us-taxpayers-subsidising-worlds-biggest-fossil-fuel-companies).

And yet somehow our politicians like to say that renewable energy isn't viable because 1. it hasn't been developed enough, and 2. the renewable energy sector is begging for increased subsidies from the government. You know who doesn't need increased government funding? Oil companies. Who know what doesn't need outside funding for technology development? An established and mature sector like Fossil Fuels.

Perhaps rather than giving tax breaks and research grants to the most profitable companies in the world, we should be giving that money to developing new technologies which won't run out, don't destroy our environment either short term or long term, and which don't already have billions in profit to draw from. Of course that won't happen because within those billions in profit, they can easily find a few million to spend on lobbying and super PAC donations.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 05, 2016, 10:00AM
I don't actually think fracking is that bad.

What is bad is not what is done but how it is done. Rather than being regulated an monitored, many states have pushed the opposite for fracking. Their chemical cocktails are considered proprietary secrets, so it's very difficult to prove seepage or link adverse effects. Their water treatment is non-existent. And their regulation protects them from lawsuits rather than monitors them and brings lawsuits if they step out of line.

Quite sad really. Fracking has provided a number of benefits, and it could be a great thing... but in order to save a few dollars here and there they sacrifice sustainability and even local health.

THAT is a major problem!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 05, 2016, 01:02PM
I am not against fracking in general, and I don't profit from it (although your friends the Koch brothers do).

I do think Florida is a bad location to try.  You folks banned offshore drilling for oil for fear of beach contamination.  Why are you enabling this process.

Not to mention it's much more expensive per barrel than drilling.  When oil gets to where it is now, fracking is just too "fracking" expensive.  Nobody wants to lose money on every barrel of oil.

The swill that is used for fracking is partially known.  We know there is sand, a surfactant, and water.  The spent fracking fluid still has the surfactant, the sand, the water, some oil emulsified inside, and some geological debris.

I don't know the health aspects of the surfactant, although it would make groundwater foam.  I also don't know what geological debris can come up.  If there's emulsified natural gas, you can get burning water.  If there's emulsified oil, it will taste awful (but then again, from my experience with water in Florida how would you know?  :evil: ).

I do agree with B0B that we need to work on control of the hazards of the process.  The fracking wells should be insulated from groundwater tables and monitored for leakage.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Feb 05, 2016, 01:51PM
Can we see some non-debunked examples of flammable tap water? How about some actual examples of frac-fluid contaminated tap water?  :dontknow:




Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 05, 2016, 02:19PM
Can we see some non-debunked examples of flammable tap water? How about some actual examples of frac-fluid contaminated tap water?  :dontknow:
Per the second question, how do you know what frac-contaminated water is, if the frackers keep their cocktail recipe a secret?

Short answer is it is incredibly difficult to conclusively prove contamination if you can't say what the contaminant is.

Which is the biggest reason for the secret recipes unfortunately.

For the first, I don't pay enough attention.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 05, 2016, 02:25PM
Given that there is a surfactant in the Fracking fluid, contamination should show in a Foam Height test.  Take 50 ml of water in a 100 ml graduated cylinder.  Shake well.  Measure foam height initially (it's zero for perfectly pure water) and after 5 minutes.  If there is surfactant contamination you should have a stable foam height; probably 10 to 15 ml high.  Has anybody actually done this?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 05, 2016, 02:34PM
Given that there is a surfactant in the Fracking fluid, contamination should show in a Foam Height test.  Take 50 ml of water in a 100 ml graduated cylinder.  Shake well.  Measure foam height initially (it's zero for perfectly pure water) and after 5 minutes.  If there is surfactant contamination you should have a stable foam height; probably 10 to 15 ml high.  Has anybody actually done this?
I doubt it's that easy, especially once partially filtered through soil and such. I also doubt that would be the full test of contaminants. There's more coal ash leakage pollution near me, but even there it can be incredibly difficult to say what levels of what are naturally occurring and what levels are a result of the coal ash. And without a well established baseline... the suits basically fall to who has money to fights the longest. And since no one is going to spend the money to establish a solid baseline prior to their being consideration of a problem... It usually falls in the favor of the big business.

The way I've seen that fought was a number of neighbors nearby banded together and showed a large area of contamination much higher than areas further away. Even then, with the current GOP approach to environmental regulations, the state refused to fight it. The locals had to band together to bring suit, and just before the court date came, the state environmental agency swooped in, levied a ridiculously tiny fine, and tried to have the suit dismissed saying it was state responsibility and the state took care of it. At the same time the locals were fighting this horrible mess, the company fought the fine and got it dropped. Surprise!

Honestly, I think the state has the best idea and authority and ability to make sure their residents are protected from environmental issues. And most of the big fracking states I've seen seem to favor the frackers over the locals. That's a major problem to me. The issues very well may be overblown.... but they could also be substantially underblown too. And without effective regulation... I think it taints the whole process.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Feb 05, 2016, 02:41PM
Per the second question, how do you know what frac-contaminated water is, if the frackers keep their cocktail recipe a secret?

Short answer is it is incredibly difficult to conclusively prove contamination if you can't say what the contaminant is.

Which is the biggest reason for the secret recipes unfortunately.

For the first, I don't pay enough attention.

This is incorrect. All of those materials are reported and, quite frankly, are not very exotic at all. The bactericides are probably the most interesting constituents.

It's more about trade secrets rather than them trying to put crazy stuff down a well. Just remember that if they're putting really reactive constituents down a well then that means they might have to treat their target product. Here's my conservative state's relevant regulation:

Quote
8)  If the Permit Holder causes any Additiv
es to be utilized during the Hydraulic
Fracturing Treatment not otherwise disclosed
 by the person performing the Hydraulic
Fracturing Treatment, the Permit Holder shall disclose a list of all Chemical
Constituents and associated CAS numbers cont
ained in all such Additives; provided,
however, in those limited situations where th
e specific identity of any such Chemical
Constituent and associated CAS number is entitled to be withheld as a trade secret
under the criteria set forth in subsection (a)(2) of 42 U.S.C. § 11042, the Permit
Holder shall (i) submit to the Director a cl
aim of entitlement to have the identity of
such Chemical Constituent withheld as a trad
e secret, and (ii) provide the Director
with the Chemical Family associated with
such Chemical Constituent.  The identity
of any Chemical Constituent that qualifies as a trade secret under the criteria set forth
in subsection (a)(2) of 42 U.S.C. § 11042 sh
all be held confidential by the Director.
 
9) Nothing in subparagraph k) 8) abov
e shall authorize any person to withhold
information which is required by state or federal law to be provided to a health care
professional, a doctor, or a nurse.  All information required by a health care
professional, a doctor, or a nurse shall be supplied, immediately upon request, by the
person performing the Hydraulic Fracturing
Treatment, directly to the requesting
health care professional, doctor, or nurse, including the percent by volume of the
Chemical Constituents (and associated CAS numbers) of the total Hydraulic
Fracturing Fluids and Additives.

Looks like they can't keep it secret; they must disclose to the overseeing body. Also the information is not shielded from medical professionals.

Further reading:

Example Chemical list with CAS numbers:
https://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used

Comparison chart of state reqs. Notice operators in all of these states must report:
http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/conservation/12.StateHFRuleComparison.pdf

Prose explanations for above listed states with links directly to relevant regs:
http://dnr.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=888


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 05, 2016, 02:50PM
This is incorrect. All of those materials are reported and, quite frankly, are not very exotic at all. The bactericides are probably the most interesting constituents.

It's more about trade secrets rather than them trying to put crazy stuff down a well. Just remember that if they're putting really reactive constituents down a well then that means they might have to treat their target product. Here's my conservative state's relevant regulation:

Looks like they can't keep it secret; they must disclose to the overseeing body. Also the information is not shielded from medical professionals.

Further reading:

Example Chemical list with CAS numbers:
https://fracfocus.org/chemical-use/what-chemicals-are-used

Comparison chart of state reqs. Notice operators in all of these states must report:
http://dnr.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/conservation/12.StateHFRuleComparison.pdf

Prose explanations for above listed states with links directly to relevant regs:
http://dnr.louisiana.gov/index.cfm?md=pagebuilder&tmp=home&pid=888

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fracking-epa-idUSBREA480SM20140509
"The Obama administration announced its first steps on Friday toward possibly tighter regulation of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, seeking public input on whether companies should be required to disclose the contents of fluids used in the oil and natural gas drilling technique.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency said it would gather public comment for 90 days on whether to require chemical manufacturers to disclose the contents of fluids they inject into shale seams to release trapped oil or gas."

"Hydraulic fracturing is now regulated by the states, with no significant federal oversight. Some big oil- and gas-producing states require some disclosure about the mix of chemicals and fluids used to frack thousands of wells across the country."
-dated 2014

Your link lists 9 states out of 50, and still some like PA are pretty sad. So no, sadly a few states breaking the example do not make it all incorrect. It just means like normal that there are exceptions.

also per another of you links, most have common verbiage such as:
"The Louisiana regulation requires operators to disclose all additives used in hydraulic fracturing fluids and the names and concentrations of chemicals which are subject to Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Hazard Communication requirements (29 CFR 1910.1200) and are not deemed trade secret."

So they only disclose OSHA specific chemical that are also not trade secrets. That leaves some major holes, even for the regulators, and also means the list you provided is quite likely a very partial one.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 05, 2016, 02:59PM
Thanks for the chemical list, Molefsky.  I would guess that not all the items on the list are in all fracking fluids, and I see some materials listed more than once.  Tje proprietary part may be the exact formula using these materials.

There are a couple of common contaminants listed which might appear in low levels in normal tap water so if they came from a frack well in the area it might not be obvious.

One that I'd be a little concerned about is the ethylene glycol.  It's main use is in automobile antifreeze and it's considered a major toxic water pollutant.  I'd guess it would be important to keep this from leaching into the water supply.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Feb 05, 2016, 03:39PM
Thanks for the chemical list, Molefsky.  I would guess that not all the items on the list are in all fracking fluids, and I see some materials listed more than once.  Tje proprietary part may be the exact formula using these materials.

That would be my guess too.

BOB, relevant reporting req from Pennsylvania is about the same:
Quote
(b) Within 30 calendar days after completion of the well, the well operator shall submit a completion report to the Department on a form provided by the Department that includes the following information:
(1) Name, address and telephone number of the permittee.
(2) Name, address and telephone number of the service companies.
(3) Permit number and farm name and number.
(4) Township and county.
(5) Perforation record.
(6) Stimulation record which includes the following:

(i) A descriptive list of the chemical additives in the stimulation fluid, including any acid, biocide, breaker, brine, corrosion inhibitor, crosslinker, demulsifier, friction reducer, gel, iron control, oxygen scavenger, pH adjusting agent, proppant, scale inhibitor and surfactant.

(ii) The percent by volume of each chemical additive in the stimulation fluid.

(iii) A list of the chemicals in the Material Safety Data Sheets, by name and chemical abstract service number, corresponding to the appropriate chemical additive.

(iv) The percent by volume of each chemical listed in the Material Safety Data Sheets.

(v) The total volume of the base fluid.

(vi) A list of water sources used under an approved water management plan and the volume of water used from each source.

(vii) The total volume of recycled water used.

(viii) The pump rate and pressure used in the well.

(7) Actual open flow production and shut in surface pressure.

(8) Open flow production and shut in surface pressure, measured 24 hours after completion.

(c) When the well operator submits a stimulation record, it may designate specific portions of the stimulation record as containing a trade secret or confidential proprietary information. The Department will prevent disclosure of the designated confidential information to the extent permitted under the Right-to-Know Law (65 P. S. §§ 67.101—67.3103).

(d) In addition to submitting a stimulation record to the Department under subsection (b), and subject to the protections afforded for trade secrets and confidential proprietary information under the Right-to-Know Law, the operator shall arrange to provide a list of the chemical constituents of the chemical additives used to hydraulically fracture a well, by chemical name and abstract service number, unless the additive does not have an abstract service number, to the Department upon written request by the Department.

Pretty consistent. Notice article (iv) mentioning ratios as well.

Just to be clear on the fact that they still have to submit this even in Pennsylvania:
Quote
78.122. Well record and completion report. (c) When the well operator submits a stimulation record, it may designate specific portions of the stimulation record as containing a trade secret or confidential proprietary information. The Department will prevent disclosure of the designated confidential information to the extent permitted under the Right-to-Know Law (65 P. S. § § 67.101—67.3103).
Under these provisions, the specific portions of the stimulation record being designated by the operator (or service company) as containing a trade secret or confidential proprietary information
are to be submitted on the Completion Report, as provided by the department on the PA DEP  web site. This designated information must be detailed on the page (and as many copies of the pages as necessary for all the information or for all the service providers)
titled:

“CONFIDENTIAL -STIMULATION FLUID ADDITIVES -CONFIDENTIAL”.

The operator is responsible for the submittal of this information even if the required information is being submitted by a third party.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 05, 2016, 07:04PM
BOB, relevant reporting req from Pennsylvania is about the same:
Pretty consistent. Notice article (iv) mentioning ratios as well.
And notice viiic, which per your guess earlier about ratios would preclude anyone outside of a very limited group from knowing. The ratios and even the chemicals themselves can all be considered a trade secret. So they package all of that up, submit it to a website the fracking companies built, and they provide the information without ever really providing the information because it's all a protected trade secret. 

Just to be clear on the fact that they still have to submit this even in Pennsylvania:
And just to be clear, every single state you have listed so far offers the ability to protect all of those numbers as trade secrets. Which in turn means that if the state is not on top of their watchdog game, and most of those listed are not... the companies have a pretty free gambit.

I'd also note that fracking is new enough and has grown quick enough, while the states may have lists of the materials, they also may not have had full time to see what the impacts of each are to allow or deny, and certainly haven't budgeted for independent research of them.

So yeah, I get your point. Someone has the information somewhere (in some places). But for most research purposes outside of the company, or anyone to defend their person/property who is not the state, or for anyone living in the other 4/5ths of the coutry... it's pretty much off limits. And really, how much research and oversight have the states put in place?

My state just opened up for fracking not long ago, and put forth an open slate to the fracking companies despite major public outcry in the potential areas to be fracked. And with no federal oversight... there's basically no oversight. Period. Same goes for Florida, where Russ is talking about. They don't even bother requiring disclosure to the state. Why would they? The state doesn't know what those chemicals and processes do. It has no vested knowledge in the area of fracking. Just try to encourage industry and money.

Again, a horrible way to start off a potentially good option, and begin with a major lack of transparency and trust.

And that is how you take a probably beneficial process and get things like "gasland" just a few years after it hits major use.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Feb 07, 2016, 08:30PM
I'm sorry BOB but you're simply incorrect. Fraccing is a 60yr old technology and the chemicals listed are very well studied and understood. The EPA has very clear and well developed guidelines for what are and are not hazardous pollutants. Did you not see that each of those compounds had a CAS number?

Trade secrets, you are incorrect here as well. Those reqs state that ALL of the information must be provided no matter what but that trade secret information would be held at the discretion of the state EPA director. This means that the state EPA determines whether it needs to be disclosed for general review by the public whereas medical requests are guaranteed access to the information. Let me repeat the relevant part ALL of the information must be provided to the state EPA. State EPA tends to be more on top of these issues, in many regards, than federal EPA.

With regard to Florida and your state, I'd wager that you actually haven't bothered to find out the relevant reqs and/or regs and are responding primarily to what you've read/heard from sources that are not fully knowledgeable on the issue. We've already established in the course of this discussion that yes, in fact, all of these chemicals are known and understood and yes they are all reported to the EPA for every location. Isn't this completely contrary to your initial understanding of fraccing regulation in the US?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 07, 2016, 10:04PM
Generally an MSDS of the fracking fluid containing all CAS listed materials should be available to the Public.  The MSDS will show a range for each material in order to protect the actual formula.

Medical professionals, Fire Departments, and State Environmental organizations are usually provided full disclosure MSDS.  I had customers who demanded full disclosure MSDS on materials I used.  I had to sign Non-Disclosure agreements (as did my customer) to obtain these.

The chemicals in that list on the Fracking site are materials in use elsewhere in industry or consumer products.  The bacteriocides can be a problem in high concentrations but are rarely used in greater than one part per 1000 and more commonly 1 part per 10000.  Given that most contamination is from seepage I wouldn't expect much of it in any pollution.  On the other hand, they are probably using more than a trivial amount of the ethylene glycol.

One of the things that concerns me is the increase in earthquakes in the vicinity of fracking operations.  I realize a full cause and effect has not been established, but the coincidence is disturbing.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: greg waits on Feb 07, 2016, 10:14PM

One of the things that concerns me is the increase in earthquakes in the vicinity of fracking operations.  I realize a full cause and effect has not been established, but the coincidence is disturbing.

Yep. And the foxes guarding the henhouse do everything in their power and influence to dissuade and discourage any real investigation or logical correlation between fracking and said earthquakes. The industry lawyers always scoff at the connection.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 08, 2016, 03:27AM
With regard to Florida and your state, I'd wager that you actually haven't bothered to find out the relevant reqs and/or regs and are responding primarily to what you've read/heard from sources that are not fully knowledgeable on the issue. We've already established in the course of this discussion that yes, in fact, all of these chemicals are known and understood and yes they are all reported to the EPA for every location. Isn't this completely contrary to your initial understanding of fraccing regulation in the US?

Were it true, Sure. Unfortunately... it just sounds more like industry propaganda. Here's the recent news in FL. My state is similar.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/29/3744324/florida-fracking-bill-and-ban/
"This week, the Florida House approved a bill that would allow fracking to take place throughout the state as early as 2017, following an inquiry into the environmental and health impacts of the practice. The bill does not require fracking companies to disclose the chemicals or potential carcinogens used in the process, however, and includes a ban on local communities banning the practice entirely."

Another state that recently opened for fracking...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/North_Carolina_and_fracking
"In 2012 a panel was created by the state legislature to craft safety rules for shale gas exploration. The panel - the N.C. Mining & Energy Commission - approved its first rule in March 2013, exempting certain chemicals from public disclosure as "trade secrets," but requiring fracking operators to submit trade secrets under seal to the state in case the data is needed to treat emergency injuries. According to the Charlotte Observer, fracking giant Halliburton told the state’s environmental regulators the rule goes too far, and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources is therefore working to get the rule changed."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fracking-secrets-idUSBREA4L0YC20140522
So in the final result, the chemicals are protected secret, stored by a geologist and not the NCDENR, and only distributed in an emergency to responders when necessary. The state also overrode the local bans in the potential fracking area, and say they were invalid. Even attempted local regulation on basic things like noise limits was taken completely off the table.

Quote
The EPA has very clear and well developed guidelines for what are and are not hazardous pollutants.
Really? Where? Looks like they are still looking into it per the EPA's site.

http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing
"On May 9, 2014, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) under Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The notice will begin the public participation process and seek public comment on:
the types of chemical information that could be reported and disclosed under TSCA, and
the approaches to obtain this information on chemicals and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing activities, including non-regulatory approaches.
This process:
will help inform EPA’s efforts to facilitate transparency and public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing and
will not duplicate existing reporting requirements.
The Federal Register published the notice on May 19, 2014.  The comment period is now closed
"

Quote
State EPA tends to be more on top of these issues, in many regards, than federal EPA
Maybe in your area... but when you look at states newly opening up to fracking and approaches such as the FL approach above and NC before it... that's not intended to protect the people but the industry.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 08, 2016, 04:04AM
Yep. And the foxes guarding the henhouse do everything in their power and influence to dissuade and discourage any real investigation or logical correlation between fracking and said earthquakes.
I have to agree with that as well. And this type of industry protection and preservation is really what makes me leery about fracking.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Feb 08, 2016, 04:29PM
This same OP posted some similar malarkey a few years ago, no education what so ever except for Florida uniqueness.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 08, 2016, 05:42PM
Here we go again. Third time is the charm, right? Since there were over 180K "views" and more than 160 pages of discussion, I am going to continue to post my op-ed columns. I have gotten much good feedback, and the ideas for future columns, from those discussions. Hopefully, we can minimize the poop slinging this time around.

FRACKING FLORIDUH!

Two types of people support fracking, extracting oil and gas by injecting water and chemicals into the earth to break them free; those who are ignorant of how the process works, and those who stand to benefit from it. No sane person who understands the process can possibly support it unless it is somehow lining their pockets.

The Florida House recently passed a bill that not only allows fracking in Florida, but restrains local communities from disallowing the practice in their backyards. It’s somewhat akin to allowing frackers to hold a gun to the head of communities in Florida and play Russian Roulette with them. It is reminiscent of the movie “Deer Hunter” where an American POW was forced to play the game for the benefit of gamblers.

It’s hard to know where to begin when listing the dangers and pitfalls, literally, of the process. One of the biggest is groundwater contamination. The water and sand injected into the fracking wells is rife with a chemical soup of unknown contaminants. No one can/will say for sure what they are because companies that engage in the practice have bought disclosure protection from our legislators under the guise of “proprietary formulation”.

Fracking in Florida, with our shallow aquifers, has the potential to turn the entire state into a poison soup making Flint look like a kid’s game. For those of us in West Volusia county, the chemical threat pales in the comparison to the geologic potentials.

Oklahoma, a fracking centerpiece, exists on a solid substrate made of igneous rock. Prior to fracking, any movement of the ground in the state was rare and minimal. Since fracking began, Oklahoma has seen an increase in earthquakes of magnitude of 3 or larger from 109 in 2013 to 585 in 2014 to 907 in 2015.

It is not hard to imagine a sinkhole the size of Lake Okeechobee opening in the limestone substrate of Central Florida as a result if fracking is allowed here. Fortunately the Florida Senate has yet to take up the bill, SB 318, ostensibly because the DEP has not yet weighed in during the process.

Feedback from concerned citizens is having an impact in slowing this process. Representives Costello and Santiago voted against the good of Floridians in helping to pass HB191. You can still call Senators to register your position.

Dorothy Hukill, 850-487-5008
Tom Lee, Chair, Appropriations committee – 866-583-2908

Do you ever write pro capitalism or pro American op eds? :dontknow:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: TromPhysics on Feb 09, 2016, 01:36AM
Do you ever write pro capitalism or pro American op eds? :dontknow:

The government pouring federal subsidies into an already mature industry doesn't seem very Capitalist to me...


And does not being automatically pro-America or pro-Capitalism make it necessarily wrong? It is possible to have legitimate critiques of America and Capitalism.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 09, 2016, 04:13AM
The government pouring federal subsidies into an already mature industry doesn't seem very Capitalist to me...
 
And does not being automatically pro-America or pro-Capitalism make it necessarily wrong? It is possible to have legitimate critiques of America and Capitalism.

Yeah, it's pretty telling when criticism of the act of criticism comes up, isn't it.
 
Advocating for improvements to quality of life that aren't approved by an accepted authority are plainly wrong.
You have to conform to an appropriate authority to be good ... clearly.
Noticing that anything is wrong, particularly openly, is anti-whatever you're criticizing.
 
Such is the nature of intellectual cowardice.
 
Note that these are the kinds of meta issues that underlie all discussion (and "discussion" or the effective prevention of discussion in many cases). Ignoring them can be harmful to the social climate.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 09, 2016, 04:56AM
Do you ever write pro capitalism or pro American op eds? :dontknow:

All of my columns are pro-America, although I am staunchly in favor of taking control of excesses perpetrated on the American people by the predatory Corporate capitalism that exists here today. Al Franken said it best......

"We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America like a 4-year-old loves his mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. That’s why we liberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well."

I am not a "My country, right or wrong", or "Love it or Leave it" American. I am a "Change it or Lose it" American.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 09, 2016, 07:14AM
The government pouring federal subsidies into an already mature industry doesn't seem very Capitalist to me...


And does not being automatically pro-America or pro-Capitalism make it necessarily wrong? It is possible to have legitimate critiques of America and Capitalism.
:dontknow:
I just asked a question. Russ answered. Thanks for the help though.  :rolleyes:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 09, 2016, 07:15AM

Yeah, it's pretty telling when criticism of the act of criticism comes up, isn't it.
 
Advocating for improvements to quality of life that aren't approved by an accepted authority are plainly wrong.
You have to conform to an appropriate authority to be good ... clearly.
Noticing that anything is wrong, particularly openly, is anti-whatever you're criticizing.
 
Such is the nature of intellectual cowardice.
 
Note that these are the kinds of meta issues that underlie all discussion (and "discussion" or the effective prevention of discussion in many cases). Ignoring them can be harmful to the social climate.
Thanks Niedermeier.  Wow.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 09, 2016, 07:45AM
All of my columns are pro-America, although I am staunchly in favor of taking control of excesses perpetrated on the American people by the predatory Corporate capitalism that exists here today. Al Franken said it best......

"We love America just as much as they do. But in a different way. You see, they love America like a 4-year-old loves his mommy. Liberals love America like grown-ups. To a 4-year-old, everything Mommy does is wonderful and anyone who criticizes Mommy is bad. Grown-up love means actually understanding what you love, taking the good with the bad and helping your loved one grow. Love takes attention and work and is the best thing in the world. That’s why we liberals want America to do the right thing. We know America is the hope of the world, and we love it and want it to do well."

I am not a "My country, right or wrong", or "Love it or Leave it" American. I am a "Change it or Lose it" American.
I disagree. They are all pretty much whining and complaining about what's wrong with Anerica. Of course you can critique and criticize the US.  It just seems that your job is to blame republicans for everything. You don't need like an occupy protester. (That's not a good thing for anyone. Especially a man at your age and experience)  You also are sometimes hard to distinguish from protesters or politicians in other countries who hate us. Where's a column on Things America has done for good in this world? I'm sorry Russ but you are part of what's wrong with America right now. Adding to the polarization. It's sad.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 09, 2016, 09:07AM
Indefensible. Isn't it? :/


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 09, 2016, 10:23AM
Indefensible. Isn't it? :/
Not at all. Pretty easy actually.  :dontknow:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 09, 2016, 10:26AM
Not at all. Pretty easy actually.  :dontknow:
Go ahead and defend it then.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 09, 2016, 10:55AM
I disagree. They are all pretty much whining and complaining about what's wrong with Anerica. Of course you can critique and criticize the US.  ...

All I hear from you and Dickerson is whining and complaining about what is wrong with the US.  Of course it's different from what Bernie whines and complains about.

It's OK to want to change the direction we are heading.  In fact, we have people pulling in opposite directions, so the movement should be fairly small.  That's one of the good points of this system.

The problem occurs when one side or the other gets too strong.  It used to be that Unions and Management were a counterbalance for each other.  Now with Unions removed from the picture there is nothing preventing Management from devaluing labor to the point where they will commit economic suicide since nobody will be left to buy their goods and services.  Henry Ford was wise when he offered his workers twice the going rate of pay to have them be able to afford to buy one of his cars.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 09, 2016, 10:56AM
Go ahead and defend it then.
Why? You didn't ask it to be defended. You just asked if it was defensible. And the answer is a very easy yes.

The entire critique could apply more accurately to itself than the quoted topic. Ie: you complain that Russ is "complaining" in your opinion. Kinda ironic. Pot calling the kettle black and all that.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Feb 09, 2016, 11:01AM
All I hear from you and Dickerson is whining and complaining about what is wrong with the US. 

No, it's the liberals that are promoting change. Remember Obama's slogan?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 09, 2016, 11:03AM
No, it's the liberals that are promoting change. Remember Obama's slogan?
He just hoped to change and move forward.

The GOP still very much wants change. They just want to change things back to white male privilege where blacks were property and women were decoration.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: TromPhysics on Feb 09, 2016, 11:06AM
No, it's the liberals that are promoting change. Remember Obama's slogan?

So change is inherently bad? This country was founded on change. We didn't like the very traditional Monarchy so we progressed to a Democratic Republic.

We didn't like the tradition of owning slaves, going back to the Old Testament, and decided to change that.

Perhaps now we've decided we're tired of the tradition of discriminating against gays, and want to change that.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 09, 2016, 11:09AM
The problem occurs when one side or the other gets too strong.

 ... or too uncooperative, and/or decides to use alternative means that subvert and/or obstruct the system of government to achieve their political goals.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 09, 2016, 11:18AM

 ... or too uncooperative, and/or decides to use alternative means that subvert and/or obstruct the system of government to achieve their political goals.
Exactly.  Like Obama and his executive orders.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Feb 09, 2016, 11:26AM
So change is inherently bad? This country was founded on change.

Constitution? Not so much.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: TromPhysics on Feb 09, 2016, 11:29AM
Constitution? Not so much.

The Constitution isn't meant to be changed? So the Founding Fathers aren't the ones who came up with the amendment process?

The first thing they did to the Constitution was change it! The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments, they weren't originally in the Constitution. And countless other instances of progress and corrections of injustices came about in the form of changes to the Constitution.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Feb 09, 2016, 11:32AM
The Constitution isn't meant to be changed?

I said "not so much".


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 09, 2016, 11:34AM
The Constitution isn't meant to be changed? So the Founding Fathers aren't the ones who came up with the amendment process?

The first thing they did to the Constitution was change it! The Bill of Rights is the first 10 Amendments, they weren't originally in the Constitution. And countless other instances of progress and corrections of injustices came about in the form of changes to the Constitution.
Changed through the amendment process only. Not the way the liberals say it should change. "Living and breathing document".


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 09, 2016, 12:40PM
Change is inevitable. Everything changes. Rocks, dead animals, etc., etc., etc.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Feb 09, 2016, 02:42PM
Were it true, Sure. Unfortunately... it just sounds more like industry propaganda. Here's the recent news in FL. My state is similar.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2016/01/29/3744324/florida-fracking-bill-and-ban/
"This week, the Florida House approved a bill that would allow fracking to take place throughout the state as early as 2017, following an inquiry into the environmental and health impacts of the practice. The bill does not require fracking companies to disclose the chemicals or potential carcinogens used in the process, however, and includes a ban on local communities banning the practice entirely."

Another state that recently opened for fracking...
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/North_Carolina_and_fracking
"In 2012 a panel was created by the state legislature to craft safety rules for shale gas exploration. The panel - the N.C. Mining & Energy Commission - approved its first rule in March 2013, exempting certain chemicals from public disclosure as "trade secrets," but requiring fracking operators to submit trade secrets under seal to the state in case the data is needed to treat emergency injuries. According to the Charlotte Observer, fracking giant Halliburton told the state’s environmental regulators the rule goes too far, and the N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources is therefore working to get the rule changed."

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fracking-secrets-idUSBREA4L0YC20140522
So in the final result, the chemicals are protected secret, stored by a geologist and not the NCDENR, and only distributed in an emergency to responders when necessary. The state also overrode the local bans in the potential fracking area, and say they were invalid. Even attempted local regulation on basic things like noise limits was taken completely off the table.
Really? Where? Looks like they are still looking into it per the EPA's site.

http://www.epa.gov/hydraulicfracturing
"On May 9, 2014, EPA issued an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (ANPR) under Section 8 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA).  The notice will begin the public participation process and seek public comment on:
the types of chemical information that could be reported and disclosed under TSCA, and
the approaches to obtain this information on chemicals and mixtures used in hydraulic fracturing activities, including non-regulatory approaches.
This process:
will help inform EPA’s efforts to facilitate transparency and public disclosure of chemicals used during hydraulic fracturing and
will not duplicate existing reporting requirements.
The Federal Register published the notice on May 19, 2014.  The comment period is now closed
"
Maybe in your area... but when you look at states newly opening up to fracking and approaches such as the FL approach above and NC before it... that's not intended to protect the people but the industry.

If I was the state I would have great misgivings about local communities making rash regulatory decisions out of hand like this. There is state and federal level EPA; why should I let random local politicians try to bilk companies out of money, potentially costing the states millions in revenue overall? That's almost certainly what it would devolve into. The state gets the say in those matters.

None of these links seem particularly shocking. Rules come under scrutiny and review; doesn't mean they're bad rules (or good rules). Nothing about "new" fraccing states seems out of line with any of the other regs we've discussed. How much more information could you really want aside from the chemicals, the amounts and their concentrations? Then it's off to the races with MSDS info thanks to having been provided a name and a CAS number.








Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 09, 2016, 03:18PM
Exactly.  Like Obama and his executive orders.

Yup--sort of, anyway ... blind squirrels and all that.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Feb 09, 2016, 04:04PM
Change is inevitable. Everything changes. Rocks, dead animals, etc., etc., etc.

Correct on this one ( for a change ).

Becoming a petroleum product is one of the greatest benefits. I'm sure your Dentist in Costa Rica or your Italian visits would confirm ( Carbon Footprint, EH!). 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 09, 2016, 06:32PM
If I was the state I would have great misgivings about local communities making rash regulatory decisions out of hand like this.
Why? They bear the direct impact. Shouldn't they have a say in the matter?

There is state and federal level EPA; why should I let random local politicians try to bilk companies out of money, potentially costing the states millions in revenue overall? That's almost certainly what it would devolve into. The state gets the say in those matters.
Taking the example of NC, recently they have had issues with Duke Power. However, the gov was a longtime duke guy (20+ years) and all of the state agencies are quite friendly. It results in some of the highest power costs in the nation because every price bump is approved (the AG actually took the regulation board to court and won several times the last few years. The board came back and just approved it again), and when they got into deep water with coal ash mess they got off extremely easily. The state just fined them 6 million to save face after the feds had to come in and fined them 100 million for a single spill. Before that, the state interceded with three private lawsuits against duke for the same thing, though the state petitioned the courts to have them dropped. For the rest of the ponds... most are critical, yet there is no rush. Duke laid out a vague and easily hit plan to "take care of them". The state then took that press release and made it into law to save face (though the law has no teeth).

I would like to say this is non-standard, but it's cropping up more and more in GOP controlled areas.

And given how poorly the state of NC has taken care of it's long time coal, why should the people trust them to do a better job with a new process that starts off much less regulated? And per the actual EPA (federal), they have no real regulations on the matter per their own website.

None of these links seem particularly shocking. Rules come under scrutiny and review; doesn't mean they're bad rules (or good rules). Nothing about "new" fraccing states seems out of line with any of the other regs we've discussed. How much more information could you really want aside from the chemicals, the amounts and their concentrations? Then it's off to the races with MSDS info thanks to having been provided a name and a CAS number.

How much more could you want? First off, the regulations state that no one with any real authority knows the chemicals, amounts or concentrations. And if that person who does know discloses them outside of a disaster and then only to emergency responders, that person will be summarily dismissed and charged with a crime.

So no, the state EPA or NCDENR does not have access or review to any of that in this case. Currently, there is nothing to say FL would be any different, and may be worse.


Chemicals would certainly help, and per well since they vary as such. How about long term effects on the area? Proper disposal? Routine inspections to check the equipment and area? Making sure that they have a way to clean or reuse local water sources so they don't kill the water table in a drought? And since they like to operate on private land, how about requiring disclosure to the private landowners as part of the lease agreement. Shoot, just the republicans not being in bed with the industry would be a nice start.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Feb 10, 2016, 11:52AM
1. Why? They bear the direct impact. Shouldn't they have a say in the matter?

2. And given how poorly the state of NC has taken care of it's long time coal, why should the people trust them to do a better job with a new process that starts off much less regulated? And per the actual EPA (federal), they have no real regulations on the matter per their own website.

3. ...First off, the regulations state that no one with any real authority knows the chemicals, amounts or concentrations. And if that person who does know discloses them outside of a disaster and then only to emergency responders, that person will be summarily dismissed and charged with a crime.

4. So no, the state EPA or NCDENR does not have access or review to any of that in this case. Currently, there is nothing to say FL would be any different, and may be worse.

5. Chemicals would certainly help, and per well since they vary as such. How about long term effects on the area? Proper disposal? Routine inspections to check the equipment and area? Making sure that they have a way to clean or reuse local water sources so they don't kill the water table in a drought? And since they like to operate on private land, how about requiring disclosure to the private landowners as part of the lease agreement. Shoot, just the republicans not being in bed with the industry would be a nice start.

I've added numbers and will respond accordingly.

1. They should absolutely have a say though it should be weighted according to their technical knowledge. There are people running around who think that fraccing is making people's water flammable. Hell, there are people running around that think that fluoridated water is used as mind control. I'm not real jazzed about the idea of locals making billion dollar decisions based on clickbait journalism.

2. This is where corporatism and populism overlap. Generations of people in that region who've subsisted as coal miners and in related industries; there's a reason coal gets propped up like this. Further, If you want to kill coal then you should be thankful fraccing has developed to the level it has. Natgas is radically cleaner than coal.

3. They certainly don't state that. They are required to provide the chemicals and concentrations. Of course you should be penalized for breaking an NDA. The whole point was to prevent competitors from accessing this information and now you've shown a willingness to betray information delivered to the state in good faith.

4. From the Reuters article: "The Senate also added a requirement for the geologist to report any banned chemicals found in the fracking fluids to the state Mining and Energy Commission."

This would indicate that not only does a knowledgeable state official have this information but he/she must disclose chemicals that legislators and the EPA have red listed. This would indicate both knowledge and authority on the part of the state.

5. Water acquisition and permitting are a whole other area of scrutiny. Deplete the water table? They're pumping water into the ground and the water they inject is acquired elsewhere. Ground water is not typically "clean" enough for their purposes. Further, flow back water is controlled with regard to disposal. Are private land owners required to sign away their mineral rights if they have them? If they don't like terms they don't have to accept them.

If you really think it's just republicans in bed with industry then you likely have a poor understanding of either industry AND politics.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 10, 2016, 12:03PM
"If you really think it's just republicans in bed with industry then you likely have a poor understanding of either industry AND politics."
Of course.  He saw that on tv.
Couldn't resist. :hi:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 10, 2016, 12:12PM
I've added numbers and will respond accordingly.

1. They should absolutely have a say though it should be weighted according to their technical knowledge.
I would have to disagree. I would think it should be weighed based upon impact, not technical knowledge. That's the basic principal of the different levels of governance.

2. This is where corporatism and populism overlap. Generations of people in that region who've subsisted as coal miners and in related industries; there's a reason coal gets propped up like this. Further, If you want to kill coal then you should be thankful fraccing has developed to the level it has. Natgas is radically cleaner than coal.
So because coal is so friendly with the regulating agencies, I should be happy that fracking has developed and is being implemented in even more friendly ways? That doesn't follow, sorry.

3. They certainly don't state that. They are required to provide the chemicals and concentrations.
Actually they do. They do provide chemicals, though no ratios, and provide to a state geologist. This position is in a different department than the department that deals with environmental regulations. They have no money to conduct research or inspections, and must rely on industry data and even industry quality that the chemicals are indeed correct. Meanwhile the department that would conduct an investigation of problems has no access to see if they are related.

Of course you should be penalized for breaking an NDA. The whole point was to prevent competitors from accessing this information and now you've shown a willingness to betray information delivered to the state in good faith.
You can be sued for breaking an NDA. Hence the "A" part. The state recently made it a crime in this particular area. Big difference. And the state geologist could be in breach for disclosing the information to the department that handles environmental regulations.

4. From the Reuters article: "The Senate also added a requirement for the geologist to report any banned chemicals found in the fracking fluids to the state Mining and Energy Commission."

This would indicate that not only does a knowledgeable state official have this information but he/she must disclose chemicals that legislators and the EPA have red listed. This would indicate both knowledge and authority on the part of the state.
The state has no red list, and there is an intentional firewall between the chemicals and those that police them to keep it as such.

Again, is this so difficult to understand?

5. Are private land owners required to sign away their mineral rights if they have them? If they don't like terms they don't have to accept them.
Private individuals have almost no chance of a fair deal in a contract with large corporations. Too imbalanced. Which is where regulations come in.

Quote
If you really think it's just republicans in bed with industry then you likely have a poor understanding of either industry AND politics.
Don't recall I said the word "just". But they are certainly leading the charges against the EPA and environmental regulations and for industry. If you think otherwise, you just haven't been paying attention.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 10, 2016, 12:15PM
Actually, for the most part a standard MSDS of the fracking fluid is enough.  As long as you know the major items, even if the relative quatities are not known.

You can monitor groundwater through a well around the Fracking area and look for contaminants in the water that can be assigned to the fluid.

Things not usually found in groundwater include surfactants and ethylene glycol.

It helps if you can find a groundwater baseline before you start operation.  I remember in one job we wanted to use groundwater for cooling and the State gave us discharge limits for the water.  It turned out that if we simply pumped the water out of the ground and tried to pump it back in we would have been in violation of the discharge limits.  We ended up in negotiation with the Town and the State over that one.  I don't mind if you want to talk about added pollutants, but I don't want to be a groundwater remediation site for pollution I didn't dump.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 10, 2016, 12:20PM
Actually, for the most part a standard MSDS of the fracking fluid is enough.  As long as you know the major items, even if the relative quatities are not known.

You can monitor groundwater through a well around the Fracking area and look for contaminants in the water that can be assigned to the fluid.

Things not usually found in groundwater include surfactants and ethylene glycol.
Sure, though when the MSDS is withheld from regulators, it gets very difficult to adequately monitor contamination and assign particular contaminants to the fracking process. Which is the case in NC, and looks to be the case in FL.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 10, 2016, 12:25PM
Unless there's some special law, they can't withhold an MSDS.  What you can't get is a detailed formula.

I'm still hoping a geologist or three would work on the earthquake issue.  If we're lubricating the tectonic plate boundaries with this process it may not be a wise idea.

Also I wouldn't get to het up about this unless oil gets back to $80 a barrel.  Nobody's going to drill a well for a breakeven or a loss.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 10, 2016, 12:35PM
Unless there's some special law, they can't withhold an MSDS.  What you can't get is a detailed formula.
Even with an MSDS, the list will not be complete and only has to follow OSHA's definition of hazardous.

Though again, in NC they do have to keep a full list but it is handed to the state geologist and only distributed to emergency responders on a need to know basis. Not for local regulators. And yes, that is a special law.

Quote
I'm still hoping a geologist or three would work on the earthquake issue.  If we're lubricating the tectonic plate boundaries with this process it may not be a wise idea.
Would be nice...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 10, 2016, 12:44PM
An MSDS has to list all known hazardous materials.  If something in it is proprietary, it can be listed as proprietary but its hazards must be enumerated (toxicity, teratogenicity, flammability).  If the hazardous aspects of the component are unknown it also has to state that.  We don't know everything  that's hazardous, and somethings we consider pretty benign can be a problem.  You know you can drown in 1/2 inch of water.

I have faith in monitoring wells being able to pick up any fracking fluid that gets into the water table.  The issue is what to do about it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Feb 10, 2016, 03:03PM
Sure, though when the MSDS is withheld from regulators, it gets very difficult to adequately monitor contamination and assign particular contaminants to the fracking process. Which is the case in NC, and looks to be the case in FL.

That state geologist is the local regulator.

Quote
I would have to disagree. I would think it should be weighed based upon impact, not technical knowledge. That's the basic principal of the different levels of governance.

Kind of the opposite of why tiered government was established. Local governments were considered experts on what they need to function locally rather than from the federal/centralized level. Unfortunately scientific knowledge doesn't work that way. In these matters the locals are not as reliable as scientists/engineers etc. who understand how to read an MSDS rather pretend they weren't given any information.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 10, 2016, 05:47PM
That state geologist is the local regulator.
Sadly no, that would be the NCDENR in this case. Again, different group.

Kind of the opposite of why tiered government was established. Local governments were considered experts on what they need to function locally rather than from the federal/centralized level. Unfortunately scientific knowledge doesn't work that way. In these matters the locals are not as reliable as scientists/engineers etc. who understand how to read an MSDS rather pretend they weren't given any information.
You are trying to say it should work the opposite of how the tiered system is established, yes. And while experts might be higher up, the local in still what is impacted and should have ultimate say.

I live in a city currently. I am looking to get chickens in my backyard if things settle down enough. But to do that, I need my neighbors to sign off. And if I screw up, they can readily report me and get my chickens revoked. Which is rough, but fair in all honesty. What is not fair is saying that my neighbor can lease his land to a gas company, close enough to mine to impact me negatively, and I have no choice or say while all the say is between my neighbor and bought and paid for politicians hundreds of miles away. Sorry, the state people don't have to deal with local property value if it goes down, and don't have to deal with the ramifications if contamination happens.

No, watching how closely states have gotten to large industries recently, and forsaking their populations to get in bed with industry... No, I just can't trust this recent push for money by mostly GOP politicians looking to court large businesses. First off, my area has courted four very large companies in the past few years, and has gotten screwed by all of them. Growing a local base of industry has proven far more effective. Secondly, this wasn't the people of NC pushing to frack, and it isn't the people of FL now, but the industry. And they have incredible sway both in area and in regulation. It's the industry and the politicians. I do think fracking could be a good thing overall. But I also think it is inadequately regulated for not much more money, and they are hurting themselves and trust in their industry in the long run for it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 10, 2016, 06:08PM
I would note, there has been a very strong trend recently by the states to lower taxes, cut costs, and pay major businesses to move to them in hopes of spurring industry and such. That seems to have a brief positive impact, but after awhile... those businesses they paid to move there find a state willing to pay even more to move away. They have no loyalty except to the dollar. And the cutting public services and taxes, comes out in things like poorer schools and poorer communities which lose business in the long run.

A lot of the same players have been following a similar approach with fracking. Regulation costs too much, so minimize it as much as possible. Don't worry about the local effects so much as the cumulative money coming into the state. etc. Just seen too much negatives from that.

If the state wants to develop it, fine. But it should be an inward push our instead of an outward push in. Do it well, suck up the extra costs to do it well, and grow a good product. Not rape and pillage the locals and the land for as cheap a price as possible.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Feb 11, 2016, 07:26AM
Sorry BOB but this just sounds like a lot of your personal feelings rather than a reasoned approach to public policy.

Chickens, their noise, smell and health concerns etc absolutely do affect your neighbors more than the state. In this case you and your neighbors are the experts in that they are on the ground seeing/hearing/smelling first hand what's happening. Fraccing is different because you can't seem to prove any negative effects and you simultaneously reject any scientific information that is contrary to your "position". This is why local government is unfit to rule on matters that require higher technical knowledge.

You know what used to drive property values down? New black neighbors. Maybe the local pitchfork brigade isn't always the best qualified to make long term decisions even for their community.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Feb 11, 2016, 08:25AM
This is why local government is unfit to rule on matters that require higher technical knowledge.


This is the big flaw with liberals.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 11, 2016, 08:30AM
Chickens, their noise, smell and health concerns etc absolutely do affect your neighbors more than the state. In this case you and your neighbors are the experts in that they are on the ground seeing/hearing/smelling first hand what's happening. Fraccing is different because you can't seem to prove any negative effects and you simultaneously reject any scientific information that is contrary to your "position". This is why local government is unfit to rule on matters that require higher technical knowledge.
 
You know what used to drive property values down? New black neighbors. Maybe the local pitchfork brigade isn't always the best qualified to make long term decisions even for their community.
This is the big flaw with liberals.

Not when you don't ignore the issues and reasoning.
 
It's the problem wingnuts tend to have with adults though--they have a very hard time, it seems, understanding the inherent communal nature of infrastructure and the commons.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 11, 2016, 08:33AM
I will say this has been the most substantive discussion in a while. Thank you, guys.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 11, 2016, 08:45AM
Sorry BOB but this just sounds like a lot of your personal feelings rather than a reasoned approach to public policy.
It's a mix of my feeling and experiences having watched a number of ebbs and flows and different approaches. The newest states pushing for fracking, such as NC and FL follow a pattern that often has a short positive bump and long term negative. Because once you set the lax standards to get the industry in, it's significantly harder to raise them later. Better start out responsible, and the industry will come when it makes sense for the money.

Chickens, their noise, smell and health concerns etc absolutely do affect your neighbors more than the state
So does Fracking.

In this case you and your neighbors are the experts in that they are on the ground seeing/hearing/smelling first hand what's happening.
No, the local farm vet or ag co-op person is much better versed than myself, and my neighbors know just enough to recognize a chicken and that it makes eggs. Even the city permitting guys know a bit more, which is why I have to submit plans and materials to them as part of my application.

Fraccing is different because you can't seem to prove any negative effects and you simultaneously reject any scientific information that is contrary to your "position".
:confused:

I haven't tried to prove negative effects. They aren't a question. They exist and are not only provable, but many are on record in states that already frack. We don't know all of them as Bruce says, but we certainly know some. What I am more concerned with is the regulation and oversight to help minimize and control the negative effects.

This is why local government is unfit to rule on matters that require higher technical knowledge.
The lesser oversight in controls and regulation and the industry in bed with their regulators is what leads to mistrust by the public, myself included. Trying to talk down to the actual people impacted and at the same time cloak the process in secrecy makes it even worse. I get that you feel some large industry should be able to pay off the state politicians, and then trick a private land owner into leasing their land, and operate as they so please.

But the reality of that approach is it places too much power in the industry itself, and tells the locals they don't know anything so bugger off. That is a big part of why we now have reluctance to frack and things like the gasland documentary and others that you complain about.

You get acceptance and cooperation when you stop treating those involved as if they don't matter and stop saying "trust us, we know what we're doing", but instead bring them into the conversation in a meaningful way and let them see the hazards and regulation to deal with them.

You know what used to drive property values down? New black neighbors. Maybe the local pitchfork brigade isn't always the best qualified to make long term decisions even for their community.
I take it you don't own property?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: TromPhysics on Feb 11, 2016, 08:52AM
I don't really have anything to add here, but I thought I'd bring to y'all's attention that there is currently a planning inquiry for a fracking project taking place in the UK. You can watch a livestream of the proceedings here, if anyone is interested http://www.cuadrillaplanninginquiry.co.uk/

They are currently addressing noise concerns which is why I'm currently interested, along with every other consultant in the office, but there's bound to be something of interest to the discussion here later on.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 11, 2016, 09:38AM
Given the current oil glut and high cost of recovery using Fracking I don't understand the great interest in new wells.

Also, if oil is so common as to be in areas where we have no previous history (North Carolina in particular) I wonder what geological data indicates that there's oil to be found.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Feb 11, 2016, 09:46AM
Given the current oil glut and high cost of recovery using Fracking I don't understand the great interest in new wells.

Also, if oil is so common as to be in areas where we have no previous history (North Carolina in particular) I wonder what geological data indicates that there's oil to be found.

Ah, but fracking isn't just oil. It's also responsible for the major US natural gas boom of the past few years. Dunno what reserves FL is hoping to have tapped, but in NC it's shale gas basically.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Feb 11, 2016, 11:04AM
It's the problem wingnuts tend to have with adults though

That's what we love about you.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Feb 11, 2016, 11:18AM
The solution for the "oil crisis" is to not use it. Which is to say, save it for its unique lubricating character and stop burning it as a fuel. Then there would be plenty of oil to use where it's needed. The "how to do this"  is with conservation.

A case in point. Our oil furnace died a couple of years ago and we looked at the alternatives.
Oil was too expensive and inefficient. Natural gas was not available. (Even though our neighbors across the street have gas the gas company wanted us to pay $5000 to have their main line extended to serve our house. A heat pump was out as the life cycle savings would not cover the additional cost. So we went with electric heaters. What made this feasible was doing a total weatherization of our house to decrease the heat demand so that electricity became the cheapest way to heat the house. After the furnace went out we had several months before the weatherization was complete. During this time we used electric space heaters which barely kept the house at 60 degrees. After the job was complete we have over 3 times as much wattage in heaters than we had in the space heaters. Yet with the insulation and weatherization our electric bill between the winter with space heaters and the next winter with the complete system was halved.

I regret to report that this was all made possible by SOCIALISM.

  • Our electric utility is a publicly owned not for profit.
It buys a portion of its power from a Federal generation and distribution system.
  • The work was coordinated by a county program which organized local, state and federal funding and hired the contractors to do the work.

 These programs which "promote the general Welfare" are a valid function of government. They represent "Socialism" of a pragmatic nature. It's not the Red Scare Boogieman sort of SOCIALISM. It's the everyday kind of socialism which works and is quite common in the US. Public Water, Sewer and Power districts, State and Federal Highways, Hospital districts etc. which provide for the common good or "promote the general Welfare" are more appropriately run by the government. What makes them "Socialistic" is that they are run for the benefit of society. The Gas utility, which wanted us to pay them $5000 to extend their gas line so that we could buy gas from them is a private for profit business.

End of story

Duff


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 11, 2016, 11:22AM
Ah, but fracking isn't just oil. It's also responsible for the major US natural gas boom of the past few years. Dunno what reserves FL is hoping to have tapped, but in NC it's shale gas basically.

That makes more sense.  A lot of coal fired powerplants seem to be able to switch to natural gas, which is cleaner and generates less greenhouse gases.

Maybe we need to revisit something that was considered a new technology when I was in school but was abandoned: converting coal into a burnable automobile fuel.  We would have to hydrogenate the coal and crack it into shorter molecules.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 11, 2016, 11:28AM
The solution for the "oil crisis" is to not use it. Which is to say, save it for its unique lubricating character and stop burning it as a fuel. Then there would be plenty of oil to use where it's needed. The "how to do this"  is with conservation.

A case in point. Our oil furnace died a couple of years ago and we looked at the alternatives.
Oil was too expensive and inefficient. Natural gas was not available. (Even though our neighbors across the street have gas the gas company wanted us to pay $5000 to have their main line extended to serve our house. A heat pump was out as the life cycle savings would not cover the additional cost. So we went with electric heaters. What made this feasible was doing a total weatherization of our house to decrease the heat demand so that electricity became the cheapest way to heat the house. After the furnace went out we had several months before the weatherization was complete. During this time we used electric space heaters which barely kept the house at 60 degrees. After the job was complete we have over 3 times as much wattage in heaters than we had in the space heaters. Yet with the insulation and weatherization our electric bill between the winter with space heaters and the next winter with the complete system was halved.

I regret to report that this was all made possible by SOCIALISM.

  • Our electric utility is a publicly owned not for profit.
It buys a portion of its power from a Federal generation and distribution system.
  • The work was coordinated by a county program which organized local, state and federal funding and hired the contractors to do the work.

 These programs which "promote the general Welfare" are a valid function of government. They represent "Socialism" of a pragmatic nature. It's not the Red Scare Boogieman sort of SOCIALISM. It's the everyday kind of socialism which works and is quite common in the US. Public Water, Sewer and Power districts, State and Federal Highways, Hospital districts etc. which provide for the common good or "promote the general Welfare" are more appropriately run by the government. What makes them "Socialistic" is that they are run for the benefit of society. The Gas utility, which wanted us to pay them $5000 to extend their gas line so that we could buy gas from them is a private for profit business.

End of story

Duff


Ex-frakking-actly!!!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Feb 11, 2016, 01:24PM
I’ll see how this goes before deciding to add any more. Many of my family and friends have been in and around the Oil & Gas business all our lives.

Here is a little FYI ( not too long of a read ):

http://townhall.com/columnists/calvinbeisner/2016/02/06/time-to-break-our-addiction-to-fossil-fuels-n2115562

Excerpt:

How many calories do you consume each day? If you answered something like “2,000” or “3,000,” you’re kidding yourself. You consume about 60 to 90 times that many.

True, you probably eat only 2,000 to 3,000 calories a day, but most of the calories you consume aren’t from food. They’re the energy you use when you turn on a light or computer, drive your car, use your cell phone, or do anything else requiring energy.

If you’re like the average American, you consume about 186,000 calories a day, and over 98% of it is machine energy. It serves you, minute by minute, day by day, uncomplaining. It is largely responsible, because it powers everything that makes us healthier and safer, for the fact that Americans born today can expect to live about 80 years—compared with under 30 before the Industrial Revolution.

Very few—perhaps 1 in 100—of our ancestors consumed that much energy in a day—mostly in the form of animal and slave labor. The animals and slaves got all their energy from food. Now we get most of our energy from fossil fuels (about 87% worldwide), and most of the remainder from hydro (7%) and nuclear (4%), and only 2% from wind, solar, geothermal, biomass, and biofuels combined.

Harnessing energy through machines instead of animals and slaves enables us to benefit from a level of energy consumption that only a tiny minority had three centuries ago—even while abolishing slavery.

End Excerpt.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 11, 2016, 02:30PM
That is truly interesting! /thanks.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Feb 12, 2016, 05:34PM
Badger
The articles dismissal of the green myth of global warming is amazing.

It reminds me of how some people use the bible. They bring their point of view to the text and dig around until they find a text that agrees with their opinion and then jump to "See I'm right. The Bible says so."

It's so notorious a process theologians have given it the name "proof texting". Its error is that it does not look at the totality of the Bible, its history, cultures and criticism. It's been used to rationalize slavery, war, beating children, And hundreds of crack pot cults. All the while ignoring the mass of Biblical study and tradition which happens to disagree with their chosen belief.

This pick and choose method of "using" science is similar. Science is not a belief system but a rational system for making choices. Yet somehow it is considered rational and scientific to take a minority opinion on global warming and dream up a green conspiracy which entails tens of thousands of scientists conspiring to a) recognize the minority opinion is the most logical option, b) decide to ignore this "truth" and think up false sciece to cover up the "truth" of the minority opinion c) and for all this to happen with no evidence of this conspiracy coming to light.

A personal anectdote. My expertise is not in meteorology but in AD/HD as I have it as well as both my children. I spent about 5 years studying this reading the popular literature and the scientific research behind it. I have gone to many conferences and have heard lectures from the major figures in AD/HD treatment and research. One of these presentations was by the former head of the NIMH study called the Multimodal Treatment Assessment. This involved a comprehensive review of all the research on AD/HD to define what it was. A review of all the treatments being used and a quantitative analysis of their outcomes. Development of a consensus "best practices" treatment protocol and a 5 year field trial and assessment of the outcomes of that protocol.
This was iron clad good science with measurable outcomes and results with no holes in the methodology.
However a Hollywood actor, a member of a "religious" group which holds the opinion that psychiatric disorders don't exist and are part of a grand conspiracy of the psychiatric and pharmacological industries, got his congressman to hold hearings and forced the NIMH to review all the work in this study before publishing it.

I guess my point here is its OK to have a minority opinion but when the majority opinion is based on good science it is hard to not to go with majority. What is amazing is how strongly people can hold to conspiracy theories when the required scale of such a conspiracy is beyond belief.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 12, 2016, 05:45PM
The articles dismissal of the green myth of global warming is amazing.

It reminds me of how some people use the bible. They bring their point of view to the text and dig around until they find a text that agrees with their opinion and then jump to "See I'm right. The Bible says so."

It's so notorious a process theologians have given it the name "proof texting". Its error is that it does not look at the totality of the Bible, its history, cultures and criticism. It's been used to rationalize slavery, war, beating children, And hundreds of crack pot cults. All the while ignoring the mass of Biblical study and tradition which happens to disagree with their chosen belief.
Of course it's also quite a popular way to go about "believing".
 
This pick and choose method of "using" science is similar. Science is not a belief system but a rational system for making choices. Yet somehow it is considered rational and scientific to take a minority opinion on global warming and dream up a green conspiracy which entails tens of thousands of scientists conspiring to a) recognize the minority opinion is the most logical option, b) decide to ignore this "truth" and think up false sciece to cover up the "truth" of the minority opinion c) and for all this to happen with no evidence of this conspiracy coming to light.
This is why we see this behavior most frequently used by the same group, for sociopolitical reasons in one case and for religious reasons in the other, but this group also tends to conflate the two paradigms, much like in traditional/fundamentalist/old school Islam.
 
 
A personal anectdote. My expertise is not in meteorology but in AD/HD as I have it as well as both my children. I spent about 5 years studying this reading the popular literature and the scientific research behind it. I have gone to many conferences and have heard lectures from the major figures in AD/HD treatment and research. One of these presentations was by the former head of the NIMH study called the Multimodal Treatment Assessment. This involved a comprehensive review of all the research on AD/HD to define what it was. A review of all the treatments being used and a quantitative analysis of their outcomes. Development of a consensus "best practices" treatment protocol and a 5 year field trial and assessment of the outcomes of that protocol.
This was iron clad good science with measurable outcomes and results with no holes in the methodology.
However a Hollywood actor, a member of a "religious" group which holds the opinion that psychiatric disorders don't exist and are part of a grand conspiracy of the psychiatric and pharmacological industries, got his congressman to hold hearings and forced the NIMH to review all the work in this study before publishing it.

I guess my point here is its OK to have a minority opinion but when the majority opinion is based on good science it is hard to not to go with majority. What is amazing is how strongly people can hold to conspiracy theories when the required scale of such a conspiracy is beyond belief.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Feb 13, 2016, 08:00AM
Badger
The articles dismissal of the green myth of global warming is amazing.

It reminds me of how some people use the bible. They bring their point of view to the text and dig around until they find a text that agrees with their opinion and then jump to "See I'm right. The Bible says so."

It's so notorious a process theologians have given it the name "proof texting". Its error is that it does not look at the totality of the Bible, its history, cultures and criticism. It's been used to rationalize slavery, war, beating children, And hundreds of crack pot cults. All the while ignoring the mass of Biblical study and tradition which happens to disagree with their chosen belief.

This pick and choose method of "using" science is similar. Science is not a belief system but a rational system for making choices. Yet somehow it is considered rational and scientific to take a minority opinion on global warming and dream up a green conspiracy which entails tens of thousands of scientists conspiring to a) recognize the minority opinion is the most logical option, b) decide to ignore this "truth" and think up false sciece to cover up the "truth" of the minority opinion c) and for all this to happen with no evidence of this conspiracy coming to light.

A personal anectdote. My expertise is not in meteorology but in AD/HD as I have it as well as both my children. I spent about 5 years studying this reading the popular literature and the scientific research behind it. I have gone to many conferences and have heard lectures from the major figures in AD/HD treatment and research. One of these presentations was by the former head of the NIMH study called the Multimodal Treatment Assessment. This involved a comprehensive review of all the research on AD/HD to define what it was. A review of all the treatments being used and a quantitative analysis of their outcomes. Development of a consensus "best practices" treatment protocol and a 5 year field trial and assessment of the outcomes of that protocol.
This was iron clad good science with measurable outcomes and results with no holes in the methodology.
However a Hollywood actor, a member of a "religious" group which holds the opinion that psychiatric disorders don't exist and are part of a grand conspiracy of the psychiatric and pharmacological industries, got his congressman to hold hearings and forced the NIMH to review all the work in this study before publishing it.

I guess my point here is its OK to have a minority opinion but when the majority opinion is based on good science it is hard to not to go with majority. What is amazing is how strongly people can hold to conspiracy theories when the required scale of such a conspiracy is beyond belief.

DRB
Seola Creek

DRB,

Here is the remainder of aforementioned article:

Today, however, environmentalists, and politicians like President Obama, call our use of fossil fuels an “addiction” analogous to drug abuse. They warn that we’re causing dangerous global warming—though the computer models behind their claims predict two to three times the observed warming over the relevant period. They demand that we curtail our fossil fuel use—even stop it completely, even at a cost of trillions of dollars (over $100 trillion to eliminate fossil fuels by 2030) that we could use otherwise to reduce hunger and disease and increase housing, transportation, education, health care, and other benefits worldwide.

One might as well demand that someone cut his food intake from 2,000 calories a day to 300 because the other 1,700 are his “addiction.” Abundant, affordable, reliable energy is indispensable to lifting and keeping whole societies out of poverty, and fossil fuels are and for decades to come will remain our best source.

Contrary to Green-sponsored myth, we can burn oil, natural gas, and coal to generate energy, as we do in America, without causing harmful pollution levels. The wealthier a society gets—partly by energy from fossil fuels—the more it reduces pollution. Poor countries where biomass remains the main cooking and heating fuel for some 2 billion people, causing 2 to 4 million premature deaths and hundreds of millions of respiratory illnesses annually, desperately need this cleaner, affordable upgrade.

Time to break our “addiction” to fossil fuels? Far from it! Time to spread their use throughout the developing world, lifting billions out of poverty and into healthier, longer lives.
End excerpt.

Here is another link to a PDF, a little long yet contains interesting and detailed  information :
https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/JDEnPolicyPt1.pdf

FYI:

Several years ago I negotiated a lease agreement with Gamesa ( http://www.gamesacorp.com/en/ ) Energy for a wind farm. Subsequently Gamesa did lease a few thousand acres then assigned the lease to Iberdrola  ( http://iberdrolarenewables.us/ ) for a feasibility study.

Iberdrola monitored the area with meteorological equipment and found suitable conditions, but other factors took precedent.
 
Funding was a concern along with lack of infrastructure ( transmission lines ). The project was never started and the lease expired.

Later, I went to several meetings presented by WETT ( http://www.windenergyoftexas.com/ ), and they have now provided, after a nice build-up period, sufficient transmission capabilities for several counties in the Permian Basin.
 
We now have a project under construction by Invenergy ( http://invenergyllc.com/ ) , and is named Gunsight Wind Energy Center.

http://www.windpowerengineering.com/construction/projects/invenergy-completes-project-financing-for-texas-gunsight-wind-energy-center/

I have recently been contacted by Innovative Solar Systems ( http://innovativesolarsystemsllc.com/about/ ). This is a new area for me and to date have not made any decisions.

I am a realist and try to approach matters from that standpoint. I did not interject religion into my previous post, you did.

I commend you on your studies into AD/HD and wish you all the best, however.

Thank You for your response. I hope I may have shed a little light on things with the above information, although lengthy with the links included.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Feb 13, 2016, 10:37AM
Badger
Sorry if my comments came across as a personal criticism. From the parts you excerpted from the article I saw that your opinion differed from the article.
My criticism was directed at the article and how minority science often has influence on public policy beyond its scientific merit.

My purpose in bringing religion into this is that minority science is often treated like a matter of faith and demands equal standing with majority science. However science and religion are two different systems, one based on facts and one on faith. Facts are measurable and can be sorted, compared and ranked by their usefulness in how they inform our decisions about how we choose to conduct our lives.

EG Methane is considered to be a more active greenhouse gas than CO2. The odds that a carbon atom ends up in a methane molecule rather than a CO2 molecule is higher if that atom ends up in a landfill rather than a compost pile. My garbage collection service offers food waste composting. I can use these facts to decide to put that bit of carrot peeling into the food waste rather than the garbage. It may not amount to much on a global scale but it is an informed choice.

Faith is not measurable. The utility of one faith in making life choices can't be weighed, ranked and compared.
EG A Jew might see Jesus as a minor first century zealot who was executed by Rome. A Muslim might consider Jesus as one of a long line of prophets culminating with Mohammed. A Christian might see Jesus as one person of a single triune God. The utility of any one faith can't be compared to the others. There's no way to say "10 lbs of Islam says compost the carrot peel and 5 lbs of Christianity says put it in the garbage therefore I should compost the carrot peel."

When one scientific opinion starts to desparage another scientific opinion as "Myth" then it is asking you to accept their opinion on faith. Instead of inviting you to weigh, measure, rank and compare the two scientifically and choose for yourself, it says you must accept their opinion as the true faith and reject the other as heresy.

No one knows how "Global Warming" will turn out. Maybe it's too late for the reduction of carbon fuel consumption to make a difference or maybe we can ease the impact of warming by changing carbon consumption. Whichever the case we need to make scientific, prudent choices.

Given the outcomes of the two extremes, "Global Warming is a myth" and "Global Warming is a fact." I think the prudent choice is to radially decrease carbon fuel consumption to forestall the impact of climate change.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: greg waits on Feb 13, 2016, 11:25AM
Douglas, I couldn't have said it better myself.
 
 :good:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 19, 2016, 05:30AM
Took a week off for Carpal-Tunnel surgery. But, I'm back!

Super Delegates

The USA is in serious need of Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution” to restore balance to our economy and level the playing field for the American middle class. I have said that should his campaign fall short, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton, because, as flawed as she is, she is still orders of magnitude preferable to anyone the other side is offering.

Now, we see the results from New Hampshire. Bernie won the primary by more than 20% of the vote, but the delegate count from NH was a tie due to the “super-delegates” controlled by the DNC. DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, says that, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.”

If Hillary Clinton beats Bernie Sanders fairly in the primary process, I will vote for her. If the DNC thwarts the will of the people, as voiced through the ballot box, and awards Hillary the nomination after a Bernie Sanders’ “grass-roots” win, I, and I suspect an awful lot of “Bern-ers”, will stay home and not support her. Perhaps this country needs to let the GOP completely destroy our economy like they did in the 1930’s before we get our revolution.

         *         *         *

The sudden passing of SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia has thrown a huge monkey-wrench into the upcoming Presidential electoral process. Not 2 hours after the announcement of his passing, GOP leadership was denouncing President Obama’s Constitutional obligation to appoint his successor.

Republicans are in a seriously lose/ lose situation here. THey can, absolutely, filibuster and/ or refuse to provide "advice and consent" for anyone Obama nominates. But, Obama was elected by a large majority of American voters. The GOP risks spurring a massive voter turnout for the Dems if they are seen as unreasonably thwarting the wishes of a popularly elected President, especially if it is seen by women as an effort to put in a Justice who will overturn Rowe vs. Wade. And, you know that is how it will be spun. There is a good chance there will be 2 or more additional openings during the next Presidential term. THe GOP might be better advised to give Obama whoever he wants and let that inflame their base rather than fight him and have this nomination hanging over the election.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 19, 2016, 07:09AM
Took a week off for Carpal-Tunnel surgery. But, I'm back!

Super Delegates

The USA is in serious need of Bernie Sanders’ “political revolution” to restore balance to our economy and level the playing field for the American middle class. I have said that should his campaign fall short, I will hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton, because, as flawed as she is, she is still orders of magnitude preferable to anyone the other side is offering.

Now, we see the results from New Hampshire. Bernie won the primary by more than 20% of the vote, but the delegate count from NH was a tie due to the “super-delegates” controlled by the DNC. DNC Chair, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, says that, “Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don’t have to be in a position where they are running against grassroots activists.”

If Hillary Clinton beats Bernie Sanders fairly in the primary process, I will vote for her. If the DNC thwarts the will of the people, as voiced through the ballot box, and awards Hillary the nomination after a Bernie Sanders’ “grass-roots” win, I, and I suspect an awful lot of “Bern-ers”, will stay home and not support her. Perhaps this country needs to let the GOP completely destroy our economy like they did in the 1930’s before we get our revolution.

         *         *         *

The sudden passing of SCOTUS Justice Antonin Scalia has thrown a huge monkey-wrench into the upcoming Presidential electoral process. Not 2 hours after the announcement of his passing, GOP leadership was denouncing President Obama’s Constitutional obligation to appoint his successor.

Republicans are in a seriously lose/ lose situation here. THey can, absolutely, filibuster and/ or refuse to provide "advice and consent" for anyone Obama nominates. But, Obama was elected by a large majority of American voters. The GOP risks spurring a massive voter turnout for the Dems if they are seen as unreasonably thwarting the wishes of a popularly elected President, especially if it is seen by women as an effort to put in a Justice who will overturn Rowe vs. Wade. And, you know that is how it will be spun. There is a good chance there will be 2 or more additional openings during the next Presidential term. THe GOP might be better advised to give Obama whoever he wants and let that inflame their base rather than fight him and have this nomination hanging over the election.

Hell no!
Biden, Obama and many others filibustered Bush's nominee in his last year of office. The same will happen if Obama nominates a left wing radical.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 19, 2016, 07:12AM
By all accounts Obama's looking at moderates, so it may be more about the right trying to find ways to pretend he's nominated a radical leftist.
 
That would keep the GOP pattern intact anyway.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Feb 19, 2016, 07:16AM
By all accounts Obama's looking at moderates, so it may be more about the right trying to find ways to pretend he's nominated a radical leftist.
 
That would keep the GOP pattern intact anyway.

There is no such thing as a moderate democrat. They're all radical leftists, socialists, communists, etc.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 19, 2016, 07:16AM
By all accounts Obama's looking at moderates, so it may be more about the right trying to find ways to pretend he's nominated a radical leftist.
 
That would keep the GOP pattern intact anyway.
Nobody knows for sure who he is looking at. I saw a list but it was pure speculation. And Judge Judy was not on there so it's not a good list. :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: TromPhysics on Feb 19, 2016, 08:21AM
Nobody knows for sure who he is looking at. I saw a list but it was pure speculation. And Judge Judy was not on there so it's not a good list. :evil:

And this is my problem with what the Republicans are doing at the moment. Nobody knows who he will appoint, so at the moment the GOP is just saying 'it doesn't matter, we'll block whoever it is.'

Yes, Democrats, including Obama himself, have blocked Supreme Court appointees, but always AFTER they knew who it was they were blocking. At the moment Republicans will block anyone just because it was Obama who appointed them, which is just more of this obstructionist crap we've seen for the past 8 years.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 19, 2016, 08:35AM
And this is my problem with what the Republicans are doing at the moment. Nobody knows who he will appoint, so at the moment the GOP is just saying 'it doesn't matter, we'll block whoever it is.'

Yes, Democrats, including Obama himself, have blocked Supreme Court appointees, but always AFTER they knew who it was they were blocking. At the moment Republicans will block anyone just because it was Obama who appointed them, which is just more of this obstructionist crap we've seen for the past 8 years.
Dems have done it before too. You don't think any of them wanted to block whom ever Bush nominated?? really?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: TromPhysics on Feb 19, 2016, 08:44AM
Dems have done it before too. You don't think any of them wanted to block whom ever Bush nominated?? really?

I'm certain there were individuals who were determined to block anyone, no matter what. But find me one example where it was the mainstream or official position of the party to arbitrarily block the President's appointment.

Alternatively, find evidence that Obama said he would filibuster anybody that Bush put up, and not just as a particular response to Alito, and I will call him out as a hypocrite just as fervently as you do.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 19, 2016, 08:57AM
I'm certain there were individuals who were determined to block anyone, no matter what. But find me one example where it was the mainstream or official position of the party to arbitrarily block the President's appointment.

Alternatively, find evidence that Obama said he would filibuster anybody that Bush put up, and not just as a particular response to Alito, and I will call him out as a hypocrite just as fervently as you do.
Where is it the official position of the party? Or even the mainstream? It's not.
Can't find evidence that Obama said he would filibuster anybody that Bush put up. Don't think that's been stated by anyone.
So far only Cruz has said he'd filibuster anyone.
The dems even eliminated the filibuster while in control but the republicans put back after regaining control.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: TromPhysics on Feb 19, 2016, 09:04AM
Where is it the official position of the party? Or even the mainstream? It's not.
Can't find evidence that Obama said he would filibuster anybody that Bush put up. Don't think that's been stated by anyone.
So far only Cruz has said he'd filibuster anyone.
The dems even eliminated the filibuster while in control but the republicans put back after regaining control.

Mitch McConnell, Ted Cruz, and Marco Rubio have all said they'd block any nominee he put forward. Considering three of the most prominent Senate Republicans, including the Senate Majority Leader have said they would block an Obama nominee, I'd say it's at least the mainstream position of Republicans in the Senate, and given that Mitch McConnell is indeed the Leader, I'd say that's pretty much an official position of the GOP.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 19, 2016, 09:08AM

The dems even eliminated the filibuster while in control but the republicans put back after regaining control.


As inaccurate as most of the tripe you put out. The Dems removed the ability to filibuster nominees to courts below the SCOTUS. That is still in place. The GOP did not put anything back in place.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: greg waits on Feb 19, 2016, 09:13AM
At the moment Republicans will block anyone just because it was Obama who appointed them, which is just more of this obstructionist crap we've seen for the past 8 years.

Yep, and imo they should be held accountable somehow. They threaten to shut down the government when they don't get their way and now this. Children on the playground behave more maturely than they do.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 19, 2016, 09:28AM
By all accounts Obama's looking at moderates, so it may be more about the right trying to find ways to pretend he's nominated a radical leftist.
 
That would keep the GOP pattern intact anyway.
Nobody knows for sure who he is looking at. I saw a list but it was pure speculation.
Yeah ... that's basically what by all accounts and may be mean, so all of that is already in there.
 
And Judge Judy was not on there so it's not a good list. :evil:
Heh ... she may not have the resume for it (just a minor technicality--if freakin' Trump can be a front runner in a presidential nomination campaign then Judge Judy can be a Supreme Court Justice, damnit!), but she'd have to be the most interesting and entertaining justice ever! And I think if she were nominated I'd want to see her get the appointment on that basis alone.
 
Good call man. You should start a petition ... heh.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 19, 2016, 09:37AM
As inaccurate as most of the tripe you put out. The Dems removed the ability to filibuster nominees to courts below the SCOTUS. That is still in place. The GOP did not put anything back in place.

Nice Russ. Pleasant and professional.
Like I said . The dems removed the filibuster. They'll do anything to win.
But you are correct Russ. They did not restore the filibuster like some said they should. The dems opend that box and now that it's out..
Try to be a little less hostile Russ. I know some polls have Trump beating Bernie but it's not over yet. Relax.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 19, 2016, 09:38AM
Nobody knows for sure who he is looking at. I saw a list but it was pure speculation.
Yeah ... that's basically what by all accounts and may be mean, so all of that is already in there.
 Heh ... she may not have the resume for it (just a minor technicality--if freakin' Trump can be a front runner in a presidential nomination campaign then Judge Judy can be a Supreme Court Justice, damnit!), but she'd have to be the most interesting and entertaining justice ever! And I think if she were nominated I'd want to see her get the appointment on that basis alone.
 
Good call man. You should start a petition ... heh.
She doesn't put up with any BS. Straight talker.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: greg waits on Feb 19, 2016, 09:41AM
Nice Russ. Pleasant and professional.

Coming from you, I find that very ironic


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 19, 2016, 09:51AM
Coming from you, I find that very ironic
I was asked to be less confrontational.
You might want to try it too. Instead of being snarky. And you're a mod so I would expect more.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 19, 2016, 09:51AM
She doesn't put up with any BS. Straight talker.

I agree, but in all seriousness she's also far too comfortable with presumption to be a very good actual judge. She likely applied more self-restraint when she was actually on the bench, but then she didn't get her current gig for being a good judge, she got it for being who she is--the fact that she's an entertaining judge. Although I expect it was a good deal of both in the eyes of those who recruited her.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 19, 2016, 09:53AM

I agree, but in all seriousness she's also far too comfortable with presumption to be a very good actual judge (hopefully she applied more restraint when she was actually on the bench, but she didn't get her current gig for being a good judge--she got it for being who she is/the fact that she's an entertaining judge, although I expect it was a good deal of both in the eyes of those who recruited her).
Unfortunately you're probably right. I'd just love to hear her grill an attorney though. I've been in court for some law classes and most judges are half asleep and boring.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 19, 2016, 09:54AM
I was asked to be less confrontational.
You might want to try it too. Instead of being snarky. And you're a mod so I would expect more.

That's certainly fair, but you're gonna need to give people a little time on that one I think ...
 
Not a lot, hopefully, but at least a little.
 
For whatever it's worth I approve.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 19, 2016, 10:43AM
Unfortunately you're probably right. I'd just love to hear her grill an attorney though. I've been in court for some law classes and most judges are half asleep and boring.

You've never heard recaps of SCOTUS hearings.  They are anything but asleep and often quite hostile to the attorneys.  Usually the Liberals will grill one side and the Conservatives will grill the other.  Alito was also a good joker.  Maybe Judge Judy would be a good replacement ;)

Dusty's comment a few posts back about Democrats being the same as Communists strikes me as mean-spirited or ignorant (I don't know which).  Maybe he feels Ted Cruz is too Liberal?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 19, 2016, 11:13AM
You've never heard recaps of SCOTUS hearings.  They are anything but asleep and often quite hostile to the attorneys.  Usually the Liberals will grill one side and the Conservatives will grill the other.  Alito was also a good joker.  Maybe Judge Judy would be a good replacement ;)

Dusty's comment a few posts back about Democrats being the same as Communists strikes me as mean-spirited or ignorant (I don't know which).  Maybe he feels Ted Cruz is too Liberal?
He must have been joking. Not all dems are communist. Just the ones I don't like.  :evil:
BTW
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/02/19/senate-republicans-easing-on-blockade-obama-court-pick.html?intcmp=hpbt1


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 19, 2016, 01:24PM
I totally understand if he nominates somebody they think is too far ideologically (like Eric Holder) that they would try to block him.  But give the guy a chance to name somebody before you jump  down his throat.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 19, 2016, 01:37PM
It's political tactics (shifting the middle ground) as well as manipulating the more easily manipulated public opinion--goading the villagers to storm the castle.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 19, 2016, 03:08PM
I totally understand if he nominates somebody they think is too far ideologically (like Eric Holder) that they would try to block him.  But give the guy a chance to name somebody before you jump  down his throat.
i agree.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 20, 2016, 04:25AM
My plan would be to nominate someone who is a middle of the roader. Then, if that person is not confirmed, to nominate someone more liberal. If that person was not confirmed, then nominate someone even more liberal. THe GOP does not want this to be a voter turnout driver for the left. All the demographics favor them for turnout in Presidential elections, and in this one especially when two of the top GOP candidates are such neanderthals.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 20, 2016, 05:43AM
My plan would be to nominate someone who is a middle of the roader. Then, if that person is not confirmed, to nominate someone more liberal. If that person was not confirmed, then nominate someone even more liberal. THe GOP does not want this to be a voter tuernout driver for the left. All the demographics favor them for turnout in Presidential elections, and in thsi one especially when two of the top GOP candidates are such neanderthals.
i don't see anywhere in your post about nominating the best person for the job. And I als see name calling with I get my hand slapped for. So really it's extreme partisanship that is really what you want. No? Win at any cost? Two sets of rules. One for dens and one for repubs.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 20, 2016, 06:03AM
That, well, it should, goes without saying. I have little doubt that anyone Obama nominates will be imminently qualified. No name calling of anyone participating in this discussion, just an accurate description of two leading public figures. And, one set of rules that both parties should play by. One party largely ignores them. And, the "extreme partisanship" has been forced onto the political arena in this countery by 30 years of right wing hate radio.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: jakeway1 on Feb 20, 2016, 06:34AM
Quote
I have little doubt that anyone Obama nominates will be imminently qualified.

I hope you mean eminently qualifiesd........


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Doghouse Dan on Feb 20, 2016, 06:58AM
I hope you mean eminently qualifiesd........

qualified.

My boss once sent a company wide email saying: " all employees are reminded to use spell heck when sending e-mails".


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 20, 2016, 08:30AM
That, well, it should, goes without saying. I have little doubt that anyone Obama nominates will be imminently qualified. No name calling of anyone participating in this discussion, just an accurate description of two leading public figures. And, one set of rules that both parties should play by. One party largely ignores them. And, the "extreme partisanship" has been forced onto the political arena in this countery by 30 years of right wing hate radio.

of course they will be qualified.
So I can describe Hillary as a lying witch and Bernie as a lunatic? Right. Because hey are accurate descriptions.
Which party ended the filibuster so they could win?
Extreme partisanship is on both sides. MSNBC, huffing ton post, daily Kos, move on.org. And so on.  Conservative speakers shouted down on college campuses. Do students shout down liberal speakers? Ever? Give me a break. :rolleyes:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 20, 2016, 09:35AM
of course they will be qualified.
So I can describe Hillary as a lying witch and Bernie as a lunatic? Right. Because hey are accurate descriptions.

Sure, except of course for the fact that hyperbole is inaccurate by definition.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Feb 20, 2016, 09:58AM

Sure, except of course for the fact that hyperbole is inaccurate by definition.
explain.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 20, 2016, 10:44AM
of course they will be qualified.
So I can describe Hillary as a lying witch and Bernie as a lunatic? Right. Because hey are accurate descriptions.
Sure, except of course for the fact that hyperbole is inaccurate by definition.
explain.

Hyperbole = distortion; dramatic exaggeration. That's the definition of the term in a nutshell, so hyperbole--witch, lunatic--is by definition inaccurate. They're hyperbolic uses of terms unless you're literally claiming Clinton is a with and Sanders is a lunatic, and they're both quite clearly not. There's nothing at all wrong with hyperbole as long as you understand it's intentionally hyperbolic/inaccurate.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Feb 20, 2016, 12:20PM
How 'bout this candidate?
Moderate D*. Constitutional law scholar. Elected to the US Senate and the White House, twice. Soon to be job hunting.
There's  no prohibition to the President nominating himself. I'd like to see if the R's have the cajones to say to his face what they would dump on any other nominee. If they reject him he would have 6months with the White House "bully pulpit" to campaign against their obstructionism.

DRB
Seola Creek

*with the rightward drift of the Republican party Obama's policies place him between N. Rockefeller and R. Nixon on the political spectrum.

That, well, it should, goes without saying. I have little doubt that anyone Obama nominates will be imminently qualified. No name calling of anyone participating in this discussion, just an accurate description of two leading public figures. And, one set of rules that both parties should play by. One party largely ignores them. And, the "extreme partisanship" has been forced onto the political arena in this countery by 30 years of right wing hate radio.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 20, 2016, 01:04PM
I love it. I hadn't thought it would be necessary until sometime in the next administration, but Obama would be an EXCELLENT Justice on the SCOTUS. THere is precedent. I also think it is a good thing for the progressive movement that this is occuring now so it will be front and center during the election cycle. It doesn't matter if it enflames the right wing base. The vote anyway. But if this pisses off or scares enough of the Silent Majority that support the progressive agenda, we could see a tidal wave election.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: greg waits on Feb 20, 2016, 02:14PM
i don't see anywhere in your post about nominating the best person for the job. And I als see name calling with I get my hand slapped for. So really it's extreme partisanship that is really what you want. No? Win at any cost? Two sets of rules. One for dens and one for repubs.

sigh


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 26, 2016, 05:14AM
This week's effort

FREE MARKETS

It is frustrating to engage in a debate on economics with most Americans. Most show a superficial, at best, familiarity with many of the basic tenets of macro and/or micro economics. A checkers level grasp of a subject more complex than chess.

In his book, “Saving Capitalism – For the Many, Not the Few”, Robert Reich, possibly the finest economic mind currently residing on this planet, says it like this, “Because, with astounding regularity, the debate soon turns to whether the “free market” is better at doing something than government…… it is a meaningless debate. Worse, it is a distraction from what should be debated”.

Many in this country have been ideologically blinded by 100 years of non-stop propaganda. They issue a blanket, irrational condemnation of “socialism”, in any of its forms, and profess unadulterated adoration of the “invisible hand” of the “free-market”.

Reich points out, “Few ideas have more profoundly poisoned the minds of more people than the notion of a “free market” existing somewhere in the universe, into which the government intrudes……A market, any market, requires that government  make and enforce the rules of the game. In most modern democracies, such rules emanate from legislatures, administrative agencies, and courts. Government doesn’t “intrude” on the “free market”. It creates the market.”

He goes on to list the areas in which government MUST “intrude” for a market to exist in the first place. They include;
Property – what can be owned
Monopoly – what degree of market power is permissible
Contract – what can be bought and sold
Bankruptcy – what happens when purchasers can’t pay up
Enforcement – how to make sure no one cheats on the rules

In America today, powerful, moneyed interests have “intruded” into the “free market” by buying political power and interfering with the governments rightful role in regulating and enforcing the rules governing our markets. This has led to the massive income inequality and shrinking of the middle class we are experiencing.

Many, who object to the platform and policies being advanced by Bernie Sanders, bemoan a Sanders Presidency would intrude on their freedoms. Reich sums it up, “Freedom has little meaning without reference to power. Those who claim to be on the side of freedom while ignoring the imbalance of economic and political power in America and other advanced economies are not, in fact, on the side of freedom. They are on the side of those with the power.”


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 26, 2016, 11:50AM
If you leave the market too "free" you get what we had a century ago.

1.  Large firms create cabals to crush competition from smaller firms.
2.  Unscrupulous firms will market bogus goods, misrepresented goods, products that are harmful, etc.

Even Adam Smith warned that true free-market capitalism only works when there is a large number of small companies competing with each other.  Once a firm gains control or corners the market all the characteristics of a free market economy disappear.

Someone must act as a gatekeeper to make sure nobody cheats.  This is where Government comes in.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 26, 2016, 12:05PM
Well, where the government SHOULD come in.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Feb 28, 2016, 01:17PM
If this kid gets it, why can't the liberals/demos/progressives/communists/socialists get it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5VfejeNGsU



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: greg waits on Feb 28, 2016, 01:20PM
If this kid gets it, why can't the liberals/demos/progressives/communists/socialists get it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l5VfejeNGsU



With all due respect, grouping communists with liberals and democrats is a stretch. There are many shades of progressive thinking.

And democratic socialism is not the same as socialism.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Feb 28, 2016, 01:24PM
With all due respect, grouping communists with liberals and democrats is a stretch. There are many shades of progressive thinking.

And democratic socialism is not the same as socialism.

OK, then get past that line, and go listen to the kid on youtube. That was my main point anyway. :)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: growlerbox on Feb 28, 2016, 01:38PM
OK, then get past that line, and go listen to the kid on youtube. That was my main point anyway. :)

Sounded like a 10 year old being coached by a 6 year old.  Was that your point?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 28, 2016, 01:47PM
We, the People, as a society create a GDP every year. Note that it is a Gross Domestic Product, not an Amalgamation of 300Million Individual Products. THe Government, Constitutionally elected by and representing, We, The People, determines what % of that GDP WE created is necessary to provide the services they, our Consitutionally elected government, have deemed necessary. Until that portion of the GDP has been collected and allocated, no portion of the GDP WE have created belongs to anybody.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Feb 28, 2016, 02:06PM
See? I told ya. You guys just don't get it.  :)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: growlerbox on Feb 28, 2016, 02:12PM
See? I told ya. You guys just don't get it.  :)

I get it.  There's a 6 year-old's view of the world, and there's reality.  We already know which perspective you have, but thanks for clarifying.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 28, 2016, 02:15PM
Poor kid.
 
If he learns to actually think like an adult when he's an adult he'll have to deal with the embarrassment any adult mind would feel for that nonsense. At least he'll have the fact that he was a child when he starred in the embarrassing video. Too late for TPTB behind the scenes of course.
 
To be a good far right wing conservative in today's GOP you have to think that way. It's there and it just stays there, intact, never mind those guys who hang out all day directing traffic around the giant Tinker Toys they're playing with, creating inconveniences for us on our dime so they can play. Same for the commons.
 
Maybe it's more about the ability to ignore whatever you need to in order to maintain a desired viewpoint though, even if you have to ignore X in favor of Y and then Y in favor of X in the next thought--fluency with self-deception. Six vs. a half dozen I guess, functionally speaking.
 
Hopefully Trump has provided the complacent, incredibly short-sighted adults with enough of a wake-up call that they'll actually take care of the problem this time--been expecting that for decades now though.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 28, 2016, 02:21PM
See? I told ya. You guys just don't get it.  :)

We get it. We just realize it's adolescent grade economics. Checkers grasp of chess principles..


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Feb 28, 2016, 03:03PM
Saying "I told you so." is not helpful. If people disagree with you that doesn't mean they're wrong.
"The Government doesn't have any money. It takes it from the people."
Well, the money the govt has is raised by taxes, which you could call "taking" in the same sense that "profit taking" is taking. But what's wrong with that? The people, through their representatives get to set the tax rates whereas you don't get to vote on how much profit a company can "take" out of the money you spend on their product. Nor do you get any say in how they spend their profits as you do with your taxes. So why is government "taking", taxes bad and corporate "taking" profit good? They sound about the same.

DRB
Seola Creek


See? I told ya. You guys just don't get it.  :)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: greg waits on Feb 28, 2016, 03:39PM
IMO, the real "taking" that has been going on for way too long is on the corporate level. The same people that allow it via laws are in the same country club circuit as those who benefit from it.

Corporate tax laws and banking policies need to be changed. It should be criminal what is going on. But as long as the foxes guard the henhouse, I don't expect anything to change.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Feb 28, 2016, 03:53PM
IMO, the real "taking" that has been going on for way too long is on the corporate level. The same people that allow it via laws are in the same country club circuit as those who benefit from it.

Corporate tax laws and banking policies need to be changed. It should be criminal what is going on. But as long as the foxes guard then henhouse, I don't expect anything to change.

Corporate cronyism occurs in both parties.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 28, 2016, 07:09PM
Corporate cronyism occurs in both parties.

But only one party consistently pushes for legislation that makes it easier and fights against any legislation that would rein it in.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Feb 28, 2016, 08:42PM

Russ
There has been a cultural shift over the last 40 years away from the traditional "government of, for, and by the people" to an attitude that "government is the problem" and "taxes are theft."
I don't think Government has ever been purely good or bad but there has been a shift  in our attitudes about and expectations for Government which has had disastrous results.
If you hold to Lincoln's paradigm and see Government falling short you are more likely to work to move it back towards that ideal.
If you hold to Reagan's paradigm and see government falling short you are more likely to see this as confirming your belief and less likely to try to move Government back towards Lincoln's ideal.
In the meantime the rich and powerful move in and manipulate the Government to serve them and not the people.
What's amazing is when people believe corporate shills like Reagan/Bush when they say they stand for the little guy and bend over backwards to give tax breaks to the rich and corporations.

DRB
Seola Creek

But only one party consistently pushes for legislation that makes it easier and fights against any legislation that would rein it in.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 29, 2016, 04:07AM
Russ
There has been a cultural shift over the last 40 years away from the traditional "government of, for, and by the people" to an attitude that "government is the problem" and "taxes are theft."
I don't think Government has ever been purely good or bad but there has been a shift  in our attitudes about and expectations for Government which has had disastrous results.
If you hold to Lincoln's paradigm and see Government falling short you are more likely to work to move it back towards that ideal.
If you hold to Reagan's paradigm and see government falling short you are more likely to see this as confirming your belief and less likely to try to move Government back towards Lincoln's ideal.
In the meantime the rich and powerful move in and manipulate the Government to serve them and not the people.
What's amazing is when people believe corporate shills like Reagan/Bush when they say they stand for the little guy and bend over backwards to give tax breaks to the rich and corporations.

DRB
Seola Creek


exactly.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 29, 2016, 04:29AM
Corporate cronyism occurs in both parties.

It's about the score ... always.
 
We're not wrong because you do it too! ... never mind that we do it as a matter of course and you do it unusually or even historically. We're not giving you an unanswered "score".
 
Such utter nonsense ... all the time.
 
Lavished with attention for it though.
 
Trump's a great illustration too.
 
We get the politicians (and the forum participation) we feed.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Feb 29, 2016, 12:21PM
Some like to use the term narcissist to describe those with whom they disagree or just don't like (or both), and it certainly seem to become a more popular term as a society, or forum, gets more polarized (vilifying the enemy), but many who use it don't seem to have a very good sense of what it actually means. Here's a good, five minute synopsis.
 
The psychology of narcissism - W. Keith Campbell (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arJLy3hX1E8&feature=youtu.be)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Feb 29, 2016, 03:28PM
IMO, the real "taking" that has been going on for way too long is on the corporate level. The same people that allow it via laws are in the same country club circuit as those who benefit from it.

Corporate tax laws and banking policies need to be changed. It should be criminal what is going on. But as long as the foxes guard then henhouse, I don't expect anything to change.

One of the problems is that the instruments of finance have become so arcane that the foxes are the only ones with a real understanding of it. Bush II, Obama, and Hillary have all been criticized for using Wall St. insiders in the treasury, Fed, etc., but they need the expertise.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 29, 2016, 03:52PM
One of the problems is that the instruments of finance have become so arcane that the foxes are the only ones with a real understanding of it. Bush II, Obama, and Hillary have all been criticized for using Wall St. insiders in the treasury, Fed, etc., but they need the expertise.

Why we need a Robert Reich at Treasury or the FED. Even Krugman has bought the neo-liberal package.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 01, 2016, 09:56AM
Robert Reich?  No the shift to Keyensianism has alresdy happened. G W Bush started Keynesian stimulus spending near the end of his term. This was the official DEATH NOTICE for "Supply Side Economics" AKA "Voo Doo Economics" What's forgotten is that for Keynes a core assumption was that a balanced budget was the norm.

With the exception of a few years under Clinton we haven't had a balanced budget since Kennedy. The result has been a steady decline in the value of the dollar.
For the wealthy, whose income is from equity in companies who sell products on the world market at prices set by strong currencies, this has been boom times.
For the wage earner, paid in dollars of declining value and buying commodities at prices set by the world economy, this has been hard times of increasing hours worked trying to keep up.

What the bankers are finding frightening about Senator Sanders' proposals are his tax increases on the wealthy. This puts the lie to those who disparage his "free stuff." Over the past few decades the "free stuff" we've been dispensing has been the petro-wars funded by deficit spending. This is typified by the pallets of $100 bills that went missing in Iraq.

The value of returning to Keynesianism is that it is a practical system based on observation of how economies function. It's not based on a dogma like Marxism or lazy faire capitalism.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 01, 2016, 01:03PM
More light reading.
http://billmoyers.com/story/the-year-of-the-populist-outsider-1896/
Although I think Trump's disregard of the facts is more along the lines of Hitler.  Facts imply a rational thought process which is a weakness of democracy. People's natural responce to politics is not rational. They respond intuitively to a "natural" leader. The Democratic procccess is a effete institution of intellectuals and Bolsheviks which stands in the way of a true leader of men.
DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Mar 01, 2016, 03:14PM
 :rolleyes:

Godwin's law proven over and over and over and over.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 01, 2016, 03:56PM
:rolleyes:
 
Godwin's law proven over and over and over and over.

Yeah, much like a discussion about a history lecture on German political leaders of WWII.
 
Quote from: Godwin's Law
"I wonder if there will come a time when nazis will become primarily known for the ridiculous analogies people make using them and not genocide."  -—rupucis
 
Godwin’s Law (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Godwin's_Law) (also argumentum ad Nazium, reductio ad Hitlerum, or a Hitler Card) was formulated by the attorney Mike Godwin (former general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation) in the 1990s and states:
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."
 
"It's like Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon, except there's just one degree, and Kevin Bacon is Hitler!"  -- Lewis Black
 
Godwin’s Law does not dispute the validity or otherwise of references or comparison to Hitler or the Nazis. As such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate in a discussion, Godwin has argued that overuse of the Nazi comparison should be avoided as it waters down the impact of any valid usage. In its purest sense, the rule has more to do with completely losing one's sense of proportion rather than just mentioning Nazis specifically.[3][4] The law was initiated as a counter-meme to flippant comparisons to the Nazis, rather than to invoke a complete ban on comparisons. As Mike Godwin wrote himself in 2008:
“”When I saw the photographs from Abu Ghraib, for example, I understood instantly the connection between the humiliations inflicted there and the ones the Nazis imposed upon death camp inmates—but I am the one person in the world least able to draw attention to that valid comparison.
 
Additionally, Godwin made an appearance in Glenn Greenwald's Salon comments section in 2010 to confirm, as Greenwald put it in a column titled The odiousness of the distorted Godwin’s Law:
“”Godwin himself appears in comments (authenticity confirmed via email) to explain that his “law” sought to discourage frivolous, but not substantive, Nazi analogies and comparisons.
 
With the increase in the number of media for online discussion, Godwin's Law is now applied to any online discussion — be they mailing lists, message boards, forums, chat rooms, blog comment threads, or wiki talk pages.

Traditionally in many Internet discussion forums, it is the rule that once such a comparison is made, the discussion is effectively finished and whoever mentioned Hitler or the Nazis has automatically lost the debate, though it is considered sort-of acceptable if one immediately says "Pardon me for invoking Godwin's Law." The blogosphere has only heightened the prevalence of Godwin's Law, with Nazi references being dropped across the political spectrum, such as the liberal Daily Kos, right-wing religious strongholds such as Bill Donohue's Catholic League, and intelligent design advocates like the Discovery Institute.

Compared to other known blog-based laws, namely Poe's Law, Godwin's Law is quite well known in more mainstream areas.[7] Just to prove it, the law even has its own Wikipedia article. In 2012 it was added to the Oxford Dictionary,[9] which means that in 500 years' time it will be reviewed by completely mystified college arts majors.

Sure, call Trump a Nazi. Just make sure you know what you’re talking about (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/).


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 01, 2016, 09:37PM
Well I don't think and didn't say Trump is a NAZI.
The topic we're addressing is Wake Up America, a call to look at what's Happening in our political process. Trump seems to have a large gap between how he presents himself as a presidential candidate and the publicly available facts.
His candidacy seems disrespectful of the political process of openly presenting yourself and your policies. If a candidate's statements receive a 75% false rating by fact checkers how do you know who to vote for?
AH lied to sieze power. Trump seems to be more interested in having the image of being powerful.  That people think he's a successful businessman is more important than the facts of his bankruptcies and questionable deals.
What I find frightening about him is we don't have a clue what he will do as President.

DRB
Seola Creek
Sure, call Trump a Nazi. Just make sure you know what you’re talking about (https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/).
[/quote]


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 01, 2016, 09:44PM
What scares me about Trump is Duff's last sentence.  He talks a lot and we have no idea what he is going to do as President.  I can sum up his campaign by "Trust me, I know what to do".


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 02, 2016, 04:38AM
And, happily or sadly, depending on whether the subject is Trump or Sanders, neither one of the non-establishment candidates will be able to do as much, if any, as Obama has because both parties will be obstructing them in the same fashion the GOP has Obama.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 02, 2016, 05:33AM
Well I don't think and didn't say Trump is a NAZI.

Plainly, but for some it may be easier to pretend as if. It can be a lot less challenging, of course, if you invent your opposition's claims and arguments.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 02, 2016, 05:59AM
I think the comparison of Trump's rise and that of Hitler should be able to be compared and contrasted without dumping the rest of Hitler's baggage onto Trump. In both cases, the populations of the countries appear to have been actively seeking an authoritarian "daddy- figure" to take care of them and "protect" them from all the "others" out there who were making their lives so difficult. It is possible to compare the rise to power of these two men at this point. It is not yet possible to compare the exercise of that power.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 02, 2016, 06:22AM
I think the comparison of Trump's rise and that of Hitler should be able to be compared and contrasted without dumping the rest of Hitler's baggage onto Trump. In both cases, the populations of the countries appear to have been actively seeking an authoritarian "daddy- figure" to take care of them and "protect" them from all the "others" out there who were making their lives so difficult. It is possible to compare the rise to power of these two men at this point. It is not yet possible to compare the exercise of that power.

Yup ... and those entirely valid comparisons don't magically go away because someone attaches the Godwin's Law label to them.
 
Of course someone who's "arguing" by labeling isn't likely very interested in validity or veracity anyway, so no matter.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 02, 2016, 08:26AM
I think the comparison of Trump's rise and that of Hitler should be able to be compared and contrasted without dumping the rest of Hitler's baggage onto Trump. In both cases, the populations of the countries appear to have been actively seeking an authoritarian "daddy- figure" to take care of them and "protect" them from all the "others" out there who were making their lives so difficult. It is possible to compare the rise to power of these two men at this point. It is not yet possible to compare the exercise of that power.
I think that's exactly what the Bernie supporters want. An authoritarian daddy figure to take care of them. It's ridiculous to compare anyone to Hitler. Just makes the opposition uneducated or miseducated, cheer.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 02, 2016, 08:36AM
In the age of reason, no one, or no point should have to be taken off the table. if there are legitimate reasons to bring up a Hitler into a discussion, it shouldn't automatically be discarded. Hitler is a huge part of history, so he cannot be ignored, nor, lessons that we should have learned from his rise to power.

I think that the people that are supporting Trump are being played by Trump. The establishment folks are opposing him because they view him as taking away their power that they have held for decades. True conservatives, as opposed to those that 'claim' to be conservative (establishment repubs), oppose him because they view him as someone other than who he is claiming to be. He will be another narcissist strong authoritarian that will further erode our representative government.

So, add me to the list of those that will not support T.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 02, 2016, 08:54AM
Every time I see Trump give a speech I get a feeling he's "winging it".  I bet he'd make a great jazz musician with his ad-lib skills.

I'm still trying to figure out what his real policies are.  All I hear is "you'll get jobs" (how?) and "they'll respect us" (how?).

Kasich, Rubio, and Cruz all have policies.  I may not agree with all of them, but at least you know what you are voting for.  Same goes for Bernie and Hillary.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Mahlerbone on Mar 02, 2016, 09:04AM
Trump's best quote ever... "I know words, I have the best words."


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 02, 2016, 09:06AM
It's ridiculous to compare anyone to Hitler.
The historical importance of the third Reich in US politics has two points to consider.
1. The German Propaganda machine was modeled after US mass marketing, radio and movies. These same techniques are employed in current US politics.
2. The third Reich was based on its collusion with German military industry pumping up the military with deficit spending. Based on his experience fighting the Germans and serving as President Gen. Eisenhower stated that our "military Industrial Complex" was the greatest threat to our Republic.

When you know these two parallels it's time to "Wake Up America".
Dismissing these facts as poorly informed is, at best, whistling in the dark and darned close to drinking the koolaid.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 02, 2016, 09:26AM
The historical importance of the third Reich in US politics has two points to consider.
1. The German Propaganda machine was modeled after US mass marketing, radio and movies. These same techniques are employed in current US politics.
2. The third Reich was based on its collusion with German military industry pumping up the military with deficit spending. Based on his experience fighting the Germans and serving as President Gen. Eisenhower stated that our "military Industrial Complex" was the greatest threat to our Republic.

When you know these two parallels it's time to "Wake Up America".
Dismissing these facts as poorly informed is, at best, whistling in the dark and darned close to drinking the koolaid.

DRB
Seola Creek
I think it's a stretch. But then again if your're a bernie or hillary supporter I'm not surprised by the post.
I could compare Bernie to Chavez or Castro or Stalin in some ways. But I don't because it's a different world and whats the point? Trump won't become Hitler and Bernie won't become Chavez. Dismissing these parallels is like being high all the time and thinking everything is "cool".

Hillary gets votes mostly because of Bill and that she's a woman. That's reality whether you deny it or not. It may not be PC but I don't care.
Bernie gets the votes from those who feel oppressed and think everything is unfair, like they're spoiled children. ANd form the left stupid and pot smokers.
Trump gets the votes from the nuts who have underground bunkers and carry around AR15's because "it's their right" and the the racists and the lazy and the right stupid.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 02, 2016, 09:35AM
...
Trump gets the votes from the nuts who have underground bunkers and carry around AR15's because "it's their right" ...

Actually, these are Cruz supporters.  Cruz gets the far right wing nut jobs and the Bible Thumpers.  If you look at Trump critically, he's actually a social Moderate.  Somebody described him as a Rockefeller Republican.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 02, 2016, 09:49AM
Actually, these are Cruz supporters.  Cruz gets the far right wing nut jobs and the Bible Thumpers.  If you look at Trump critically, he's actually a social Moderate.  Somebody described him as a Rockefeller Republican.
Yup.  Forgot about Cruz.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 02, 2016, 09:53AM
Yup.  Forgot about Cruz.

Wish everybody else would too :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 02, 2016, 10:08AM
Wish everybody else would too :evil:

Oh comeon ... he'd be a great Pastor in Chief!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 02, 2016, 12:29PM
I think it's a stretch. But then again if your're a bernie or hillary supporter I'm not surprised by the post.

Ron, explain what you see as a "stretch."

"In his 1965 autobiography, Bernays recalls a dinner at his home in 1933 where Karl von Wiegand, foreign correspondent of the Hearst newspapers, an old hand at interpreting Europe and just returned from Germany, was telling us about Goebbels and his propaganda plans to consolidate Nazi power. Goebbels had shown Wiegand his propaganda library, the best Wiegand had ever seen. Goebbels, said Wiegand, was using my book Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me. ... Obviously the attack on the Jews of Germany was no emotional outburst of the Nazis, but a deliberate, planned campaign.[30]"

So here we have a nationally recognized reporter stating directly to to Bernays, the author, that Goebells is using his book in his propaganda campaigns and you say that saying Goebells used American Mass Marketing theory in the development of his propaganda system is a stretch?

"...in 1930, Hitler used fear of Communism to get support from Hugenberg, an industrialist who owned a chain of newspapers, and Thyssen, a steel manufacturer. They, and other industrialists, formed the Harzburg Front which helped finance the Nazi election campaigns in 1932-3"

Eisenhower was an Army Lifer. He was professionally aware of this rearmament of Germany and the industrialists behind it. He was even aware that German branches of American Companies were participating in this rearmament. Is it therefore a stretch to say that this knowledge plus his eight years as president impacted this strongly worded part of his "Fair Well Address"?

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

To the founding fathers their two greatest fears were a State sanctioned church and a standing army. In Eisenhower's day he was trying to run the cold war and balance a budget. Now we live in a time of economic dominance and the super powers are reduced. Yet we continue a program of military interventionism funded by deficit spending. Should we forget the lessons of history and Eisenhower's warning and maintain the course or should we "take nothing for granted"?

Then again it may be as you that say supporters of Bernie and Hilary like von Wiegand, Bernays and Eisenhower are stretching the truth and there's nothing to worry about.

DRB
Seola creek




Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 02, 2016, 12:56PM
Ron, explain what you see as a "stretch."

"In his 1965 autobiography, Bernays recalls a dinner at his home in 1933 where Karl von Wiegand, foreign correspondent of the Hearst newspapers, an old hand at interpreting Europe and just returned from Germany, was telling us about Goebbels and his propaganda plans to consolidate Nazi power. Goebbels had shown Wiegand his propaganda library, the best Wiegand had ever seen. Goebbels, said Wiegand, was using my book Crystallizing Public Opinion as a basis for his destructive campaign against the Jews of Germany. This shocked me. ... Obviously the attack on the Jews of Germany was no emotional outburst of the Nazis, but a deliberate, planned campaign.[30]"

So here we have a nationally recognized reporter stating directly to to Bernays, the author, that Goebells is using his book in his propaganda campaigns and you say that saying Goebells used American Mass Marketing theory in the development of his propaganda system is a stretch?

"...in 1930, Hitler used fear of Communism to get support from Hugenberg, an industrialist who owned a chain of newspapers, and Thyssen, a steel manufacturer. They, and other industrialists, formed the Harzburg Front which helped finance the Nazi election campaigns in 1932-3"

Eisenhower was an Army Lifer. He was professionally aware of this rearmament of Germany and the industrialists behind it. He was even aware that German branches of American Companies were participating in this rearmament. Is it therefore a stretch to say that this knowledge plus his eight years as president impacted this strongly worded part of his "Fair Well Address"?

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military–industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals so that security and liberty may prosper together."

To the founding fathers their two greatest fears were a State sanctioned church and a standing army. In Eisenhower's day he was trying to run the cold war and balance a budget. Now we live in a time of economic dominance and the super powers are reduced. Yet we continue a program of military interventionism funded by deficit spending. Should we forget the lessons of history and Eisenhower's warning and maintain the course or should we "take nothing for granted"?

Then again it may be as you that say supporters of Bernie and Hilary like von Wiegand, Bernays and Eisenhower are stretching the truth and there's nothing to worry about.

DRB
Seola creek



Your quote, " The German Propaganda machine was modeled after US mass marketing, radio and movies. These same techniques are employed in current US politics."  The dems and republicans use mass marketing radio and tv adds. It part of modernization and moving into the 21st century. If tv and radio were around 200 years ago it would have been used then. If the third reich modeled their rise using these modes, so what?

"The third Reich was based on its collusion with German military industry pumping up the military with deficit spending. Based on his experience fighting the Germans and serving as President Gen. Eisenhower stated that our "military Industrial Complex" was the greatest threat to our Republic."
Does Eisenhower speak infallibly? I don't agree with him first of all and secondly, the US has not inclination to take over the world like Hitler wanted.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 02, 2016, 01:40PM
Comment withdrawn.
DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 02, 2016, 04:48PM
The connecting point is Bernays' world view that there was a natural intellectual elite which manipulates the opinions of the electorate so so that they vote "the right way".
The German experience demonstrated that this manipulation can be done to get the electorate to move against their own best interests. That the elite may act out of selfish or even evil intent to get the masses to commit acts they'd would normally find repugnant.
Bernays' theory of an elite which manipulates the masses is antithetical to the Jeffersonian ideal of a well informed electorate as the defenders of the Republic. This is why I'm pointing out this crossover.

No I don't take Eisenhower as infallible. He has many skeletons in his closet. But when a man makes a statement that's contrary to his training it makes me sit up and notice. A supporter of a strong military who choses to say in his " fairwell address" that the military industrial complex is a threat to the country to me means he must have had very strong evidence to say so.

Like I said the topic is "Wake Up America" but if you want to hit the snooze button and sleep while our country is going downhill that's up to you.

DRB
Seola Creek
Or you could ring the alarm button and alert the citizens to what? Downhill because of the military industrial complex? Not likely.
What is the military industrial complex and why do you think it's a problem?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 02, 2016, 06:02PM
...
What is the military industrial complex and why do you think it's a problem?

The Military-Industrial Complex (and I worked in it for a while) consists of a collusion between the upper ranks of the Military working with private industry to provide tools for the Military.  Often tools with limited or no usefulness in the current context of military operations, but which siphon trillions of dollars in taxes to private industry pockets.

How important in the scheme of modern (i.e. current operations) warfare is a supersonic Stealth bomber?  Strategic nuclear missile?  Most of the tasks given to today's Military calls for tactical forces.  I remember an abortive program to develop a radar targeted antiarcraft gun that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (literally).  Another one was a reconnaissance drone that was launched by a catapult from a jeep and after its job was done, you flew it into a huge butterfly net.

We don't need a lot of the "toys" the industry is creating but they fund the re-election campaigns of Congress and hence we keep buying them.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 02, 2016, 06:32PM

What is the military industrial complex?

It's the total military institution in the US. It's a mixture of the clearly defined military, the military functions in the DOEnergy, NASA, CIA, DIA black budget ops and NSA, military contractors and there subcontractors and the chain of economic dependents down to the level of the barber shop in a strip mall near a base. Like the name says, it's complex.

and why do you think it's a problem?

If the govt builds a road people can use it. It's an asset for the public good.
If the govt builds a bomb and it's used it destroys another people's asset.
One is a positive benefit the other is not.

The problem is that people treat the MIC dogmatically either dismissing it as conspiracy or protecting it like it's holy.
It's to the point that there is no conversation about its utility to the country.
Any queries are labelled as unpatriotic, unrealistic or delusional.

The End



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Bruce the budgie on Mar 02, 2016, 07:22PM
I remember an abortive program to develop a radar targeted antiarcraft gun that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (literally). 

I remember that one, supposedly a splicing together of some pre-existing systems, a radar and a gun, with its fire director. The story went something like: big demonstration of one of the first articles to a gaggle of top brass, maybe including some highly placed civilian suits. Come the day, some minions made sure the unit was all pretty by washing it... some water got into a connector, and the platform's first act was to train the gun on the reviewing stand, point blank. Fun times.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 02, 2016, 08:10PM
The Military-Industrial Complex (and I worked in it for a while) consists of a collusion between the upper ranks of the Military working with private industry to provide tools for the Military.  Often tools with limited or no usefulness in the current context of military operations, but which siphon trillions of dollars in taxes to private industry pockets.

How important in the scheme of modern (i.e. current operations) warfare is a supersonic Stealth bomber?  Strategic nuclear missile?  Most of the tasks given to today's Military calls for tactical forces.  I remember an abortive program to develop a radar targeted antiarcraft gun that couldn't hit the broad side of a barn (literally).  Another one was a reconnaissance drone that was launched by a catapult from a jeep and after its job was done, you flew it into a huge butterfly net.

We don't need a lot of the "toys" the industry is creating but they fund the re-election campaigns of Congress and hence we keep buying them.
How important is a supersonic stealth bomber? Strategis nuclear missle? Very important. It's called deterrence and ha worked for over half a century.
Yes most military operations are tactical. Does that mean we don't prepare for the worst case scenario?
Toys are useless. Always being ahead of potential adversaries is important. Read  Sun Tzu. It still applies today.
Why are you against the military  same thing happens in the civilian sector?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 02, 2016, 08:12PM

No t unpatriotic . Just ignorant. If you don't think the military has a purpose for the public good,  that's dilusional.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 02, 2016, 08:45PM
The problem is that there is entirely incorrect toy buying by the Military.  It's going to bankrupt us.

If they wanted to invest in a dental drill that was able to remove all the decay in a cavity in 1/2 second before the patient even realized it, that's something that is useful.  Make it battery powered so it can be used in a field hospital and it's even more useful.  Then it even becomes useful to the civilian sector.  We have jet passenger planes because of jet bombers like the B-47, but what spinoffs can be useful from a B-2 Bomber?  Can't fly at supersonic speeds because of the sonic boom problem; nobody wants a plane that is invisible to radar since you can't properly route it using GCA.

How about robots that sniff out IEDs?  I bet those are in development and are useful.  How about color night vision goggles?  Probably be more useful than a supersonic fighter that is only useful in a dogfight with Russia.  But I bet the robots and night vision goggles don't have the profit margins the F-35 does so the lobbyists push for that.  I'd rather see the better dental drill, myself.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 02, 2016, 08:52PM
The problem is that there is entirely incorrect toy buying by the Military.  It's going to bankrupt us.

If they wanted to invest in a dental drill that was able to remove all the decay in a cavity in 1/2 second before the patient even realized it, that's something that is useful.  Make it battery powered so it can be used in a field hospital and it's even more useful.  Then it even becomes useful to the civilian sector.  We have jet passenger planes because of jet bombers like the B-47, but what spinoffs can be useful from a B-2 Bomber?  Can't fly at supersonic speeds because of the sonic boom problem; nobody wants a plane that is invisible to radar since you can't properly route it using GCA.

How about robots that sniff out IEDs?  I bet those are in development and are useful.  How about color night vision goggles?  Probably be more useful than a supersonic fighter that is only useful in a dogfight with Russia.  But I bet the robots and night vision goggles don't have the profit margins the F-35 does so the lobbyists push for that.  I'd rather see the better dental drill, myself.
The F35 does everything that the eagle, the hornet, the growler, the fighting falcon, the harrier all do in one airplane. Snd it's stealthy.
Do you know what the profit margins are? I don't.
Let's not prepare. Let's just react when it's too late.
Of course there's a money problem. But it's in the civilian sector too. Does that bother you?
I want the baddest, weapon on the planet.  Whether it's a plane or a handgun.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 02, 2016, 09:48PM
How about that dental drill? ;)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 03, 2016, 05:10AM
Let's not prepare. Let's just react when it's too late.
You do realize there are almost always a lot of options between all and nothing ... no? Let's not waste does not equal let's do nothing. You seem to understand that quite well for some cases, even if you may apply it to a bit of an extreme for them, but not at all for others.
 
Of course there's a money problem. But it's in the civilian sector too. Does that bother you?
Is it more important that The Other has problems as well (whatever The Other may be--in this case the civilian sector), or to fix what problems we can? Is it more about excusing excess you like (as if the fact excess exists somehow excuses it from one instance to another), or actually dealing with the excesses and seeking effective appropriations and such?
 
It seems as if the other guy does it too (whether it's a fair equivalency or not) gives you the sense of license to write things off entirely as if the other guy does it too actually addressed the issue.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 03, 2016, 09:56AM
Ron


"I want the baddest, weapon on the planet.  Whether it's a plane or a handgun."

The baddest, there you said it, weapons systems are a negative impact. You buy a Magnum .44 because it can make a negative impact on someone's lifestyle.
If you buy it for deterrence and don't use it what good has it done? You can argue it prevented a bad thing from happening but that's not a positive impact but a hypothetical lack of a negative one.

Like I said build a road and people can use it. It becomes a positive asset for the community. Build a weapons system and the best case is you don't use it, a zero sum game with no benefit. The worst case is having it becomes an excuse to use it which negates community assets.

DRB
Seola Creek.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 03, 2016, 10:35AM
And, we could cut or "Defense" budget in half and still spend significantly more than anyone else on the planet. The waste in the military is mind boggling. In just the little exposure I have had visiting my son on military installations I have seen tons of it.

Case in point. Ft Sam Houston in San Antonio is a Joint Operations Base that does the bulk of medical training for the military. On the base 2 of the dormitory/ barracks were built at the same time, from the same plans, by the same contractor, and then furnished from the same purchase order from the same supplier. They are as identical as two facilities can be. One is administered by the Army, the other by the USAF. Classes at Ft. Sam are multi-service. When there are more soldiers than airmen in a class, the overflow of soldiers are housed in the AF dorm. When there are more airmen than soldiers, the overflow airmen are housed in the Army dorm. Remember, the dorms are identical. When airmen are assigned to the Army dorm, they are given a $100 a month stipend for living in "substandard" Army housing. A stipend the airmen staying in the identical USAF dorm don't get.

I suspect there are millions of other equally baffling wastes of money that could be discovered and eliminated without affecting readiness in the least IF there were competent oversight of the military.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 03, 2016, 10:43AM
I don't think you have to view the military as useless to have misgivings about the m-i complex.

We rely on the expertise of these people to keep us safe, and because of the importance of that we may give up some freedom. And when the military and industrial hands start washing one another, the 'expert' opinions that we rely on may become self-serving and improperly motivated.

In some ways it's similar to the Wall St. mess--the only people with a thoroughgoing knowledge are interested parties, so you have to take their advice with a grain of salt.

When you get ideology, tribalism, and self-identity mixed in there it gets even worse. You have people who are constitutionally pro-military and constitutionally anti-military, without regard to the specifics of each program or alternative. Each in turn views the other as bellicose or unpatriotic, respectively. That creates yet another layer to prevent us from taking a practical view of the contingencies of keeping safe.

None of this amounts to saying, "The military isn't important." What I believe DDE was saying is, This is a danger we get into when we place our lives in the hands of others, who may have their own set of concerns.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 03, 2016, 11:29AM
We already have possession of the "baddest weapons on the planet". They didn't cost that much, and don't fall to the deprecation problems of planes and missiles. Instead, they manage to use our own developments against us. And they are controlled by the CDC rather than the military.

So why shovel limitless money into the military again?

We could cut the military budget to a quarter of what it is now, and still have more than enough and still spend more than anyone else. And no, the private sector has nowhere near the level of waste as the military. They couldn't afford half that bad.



Seems a bit counter-productive to throw all the money away trying not to die, so much that you can't afford to live. Much more effective to build a good life and repair when needed, than to toil away in fear while planning for the worse.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 12:12PM
Ron


"I want the baddest, weapon on the planet.  Whether it's a plane or a handgun."

The baddest, there you said it, weapons systems are a negative impact. You buy a Magnum .44 because it can make a negative impact on someone's lifestyle.
If you buy it for deterrence and don't use it what good has it done? You can argue it prevented a bad thing from happening but that's not a positive impact but a hypothetical lack of a negative one.

Like I said build a road and people can use it. It becomes a positive asset for the community. Build a weapons system and the best case is you don't use it, a zero sum game with no benefit. The worst case is having it becomes an excuse to use it which negates community assets.

DRB
Seola Creek.
Negative impact? Did our weapons have a negative impact on Germany Italy and Japan. Your dam right they did. That's what weapons are for. To kill or deter.
Buy it for deterrence and don't use it??? Then it was successful.  It deterred. It is a positive impact because it prevented a negative one. I'm not sure what you are talking about.
Do you think we need to get rid of all our weapons?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 12:14PM
We already have possession of the "baddest weapons on the planet". They didn't cost that much, and don't fall to the deprecation problems of planes and missiles. Instead, they manage to use our own developments against us. And they are controlled by the CDC rather than the military.

So why shovel limitless money into the military again?

We could cut the military budget to a quarter of what it is now, and still have more than enough and still spend more than anyone else. And no, the private sector has nowhere near the level of waste as the military. They couldn't afford half that bad.



Seems a bit counter-productive to throw all the money away trying not to die, so much that you can't afford to live. Much more effective to build a good life and repair when needed, than to toil away in fear while planning for the worse.
I totally disagree. That is extremely far from realistic.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 03, 2016, 12:21PM
You are missing the point, Drillmeister.

How many ICBMs do we need?  Especially if one can turn Pyongyang and a 50 kilometer radius into a large radioactive hole.

How often are we in need of a supersonic bomber?  Do we really need several squadrons?

Incidentally, the original reason for our armed forces was for DEFENSE.  I would think that developing a system that can intercept missiles or suicide bombers is more DEFENSE than a B2 Bomber.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 03, 2016, 12:30PM
I spent $1000 for a polar bear deterrent system. It's been working amazingly well.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 12:47PM
You are missing the point, Drillmeister.

How many ICBMs do we need?  Especially if one can turn Pyongyang and a 50 kilometer radius into a large radioactive hole.

How often are we in need of a supersonic bomber?  Do we really need several squadrons?

Incidentally, the original reason for our armed forces was for DEFENSE.  I would think that developing a system that can intercept missiles or suicide bombers is more DEFENSE than a B2 Bomber.
What if one doesn't work? What if some are sabotaged or taken out before we can launch? We need many.
Redundancy, like on an airplane, is necessary.
Several squadrons? So if they are all at one base and they are taken out. If some have mechanical issues? Do you think everything works 100% of the time?
So if Europe is attacked we just sit back and wait till we are attacked?
Remember the B52 is till in use over 50 years later.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 12:48PM
I spent $1000 for a polar bear deterrent system. It's been working amazingly well.

That's an analogy???


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 03, 2016, 12:53PM
I totally disagree. That is extremely far from realistic.
Not at all. What the CDC has could kill more people than our entire nuclear arsenal. Incredible weapons, on a much much smaller budget.

Don't you find the argument of someone in the military saying the military needs basically limitless spending to be, well, self-serving? It's akin to me saying my paycheck should be limitless, or at least that on my employer.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 03, 2016, 12:54PM
That's an analogy???
pretty accurate one, too, yes.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 03, 2016, 12:58PM
Redundancy, like on an airplane, is necessary.
Several squadrons? So if they are all at one base and they are taken out. If some have mechanical issues? Do you think everything works 100% of the time?
Following that logic, we should have 3 or 4 cars for every person just to make sure they can get around.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 01:00PM
Following that logic, we should have 3 or 4 cars for every person just to make sure they can get around.
Bob, you don't even believe that the US military protects you from threats 24/7 so why bother.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 03, 2016, 01:11PM
Ron

"Negative impact? Did our weapons have a negative impact on Germany Italy and Japan. Your dam right they did. That's what weapons are for. To kill or deter."

Yes, that's what I said. No need for swearing.

"Buy it for deterrence and don't use it??? Then it was successful.  It deterred. It is a positive impact because it prevented a negative one. I'm not sure what you are talking about."

It's just logic. Keeping a negative event from happening is not a positive event it's just preventing a negative event. Which may be good but that doesn't mean the deterrent itself is a positive impact. Like I said building a road has positive impact because it has utility, people can use the road to drive to work etc. By definition you dont use a deterrent weapons system so it has no utlity. It cant have a positive use for the community.


"Do you think we need to get rid of all our weapons?"

Yes but I don't consider that to be an attainable political goal. I propose we should go with a "strict Constitutionalist" position cutting back to the militia and arms the "founding fathers " had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 03, 2016, 01:14PM
I spent $1000 for a polar bear deterrent system. It's been working amazingly well.

And as long as you pay your annual bear patrol tax you'll never see a polar bear in your yard.
DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 03, 2016, 01:36PM
Bob, you don't even believe that the US military protects you from threats 24/7 so why bother.
They protect me as much as Russ's polar bear deterrent system in Florida. Guess you could say that protects him 24/7 too.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 03, 2016, 01:38PM
author=ronkny
"So if Europe is attacked we just sit back and wait till we are attacked?"

So who would attack them? Putin is too smart. He knows we needs Europe to buy gas from him. The world is too interconnected now for mass invasion and occupation to sucede.
This is the lesson of WW2, no country's economy is large enough to sustain the scenario. The big army, big weapons model is outmoded.
The French have nukes. They didn't help the people at the Bataclan. They're the last century's weapons.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 03, 2016, 01:50PM
How about an audit on the war on poverty, the billions given to the dept of education, and the IRS?

Why just single out the military?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 01:50PM
Ron

"Negative impact? Did our weapons have a negative impact on Germany Italy and Japan. Your dam right they did. That's what weapons are for. To kill or deter."

Yes, that's what I said. No need for swearing.

"Buy it for deterrence and don't use it??? Then it was successful.  It deterred. It is a positive impact because it prevented a negative one. I'm not sure what you are talking about."

It's just logic. Keeping a negative event from happening is not a positive event it's just preventing a negative event. Which may be good but that doesn't mean the deterrent itself is a positive impact. Like I said building a road has positive impact because it has utility, people can use the road to drive to work etc. By definition you dont use a deterrent weapons system so it has no utlity. It cant have a positive use for the community.


"Do you think we need to get rid of all our weapons?"

Yes but I don't consider that to be an attainable political goal. I propose we should go with a "strict Constitutionalist" position cutting back to the militia and arms the "founding fathers " had in mind when they wrote the 2nd Amendment.

DRB
Seola Creek
Doug. The world doesn't work that way.
If we had no military what do you think would happen?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 01:53PM
author=ronkny
"So if Europe is attacked we just sit back and wait till we are attacked?"

So who would attack them? Putin is too smart. He knows we needs Europe to buy gas from him. The world is too interconnected now for mass invasion and occupation to sucede.
This is the lesson of WW2, no country's economy is large enough to sustain the scenario. The big army, big weapons model is outmoded.
The French have nukes. They didn't help the people at the Bataclan. They're the last century's weapons.

DRB
Seola Creek

Sorry Doug. You are just so wrong. Are you trying to be funny?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 01:54PM
How about an audit on the war on poverty, the billions given to the dept of education, and the IRS?

Why just single out the military?
Because they're liberals.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: greg waits on Mar 03, 2016, 02:17PM
And education always seems to get low priority from the Republican politicians. They prefer an ignorant constituency.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 03, 2016, 02:23PM
And education always seems to get low priority from the Republican politicians. They prefer an ignorant constituency.


We spend more money on education than any other country in the world. Every year, they holler that we need to spend billions. Well, what happened to the billions we spent last year? How about an audit, so we know where the billions went last year, and the fifty years before last year.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 02:25PM
And education always seems to get low priority from the Republican politicians. They prefer an ignorant constituency.

I think education is important. That's partly why I went to school for 10 years after high school and received three degrees. And why my wife went to school for 8 years after high school and my kids are now in college. However, I do believe that libs put too much emphasis on education to the point that if you don't go to college maybe you shouldn't vote.  That is the mentality of some libs. The libs also like to have a constituency that depends on them. Power thing? I don't know. But there's lots of poor and uneducated on both sides. Ignorance is great for politicians of both stripes.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 02:35PM
What amazes me on this thread is that nobody else reading this thread defends what I'm stating regarding either the military defending us 24/7 (Maybe except for Bob for some reason) or that deterrence works. Do all the dems and liberals here really believe that or are some afraid to break from the ranks?  Is this the constituency that votes democrat? That would be scary. Even Bernie agrees with me.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Graham Martin on Mar 03, 2016, 03:10PM
Sorry to cut across the current topic trend but, with so many threads about Trump, it is difficult to pick the most suitable for an outsider's thoughts.

I have been amazed at the support for Trump in the primaries because I thought that the average American, even Republicans, were smarter. Although I do note that quite a few posters here think they are not. What I can tell you is that the standing of the US as a world leader has been severely bruised by what is going on. I am not just talking about Australia - we would like to think, one of your closest allies - but by all the European and S.E. Asian press.

So I am somewhat encouraged to read today that former US presidential candidate Mitt Romney has given a blistering rebuke of Donald Trump. He is apparently leading an attempt by the party establishment to halt the rise of the outspoken New York billionaire. I really hope that is the case although it seems to me it might be too late. That world press I mentioned has already concluded that it will be a Hillary Clinton versus Donald Trump election. A lot of the American press also believe that will be the outcome. Anyway, the article I read went on to say:

"Mr Romney, a Republican elder statesman and the presidential nominee four years ago, urged Republicans in states that have not yet held nominating contests to back Mr Trump's opponents to stop his march to the nomination for the November 8 election.

"Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phoney, a fraud," said Mr Romney, 68, in a hard-hitting speech.

"He's playing the members of the American public for suckers. He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat," he said."

Hear, hear Mitt!

This American National poll is also interesting:

http://edition.cnn.com/2016/03/01/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-poll/

Let's hope they are correct and it is not too late. So, Yes indeed, "Wake Up, America!"


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 03, 2016, 03:22PM
What amazes me on this thread is that nobody else reading this thread defends what I'm stating regarding either the military defending us 24/7

 I believe the military is ready to defend us 24/7, but, I don't see much in the way of threats it is "defending" us from. It is also in a whole lot of places that have absolutely nothing to do with "defending" us, and can only be construed as "offensive" posturing. The movers and shakers behind the M-I Complex are not stupid. They have spread their manufacturing facilities as widely, and into as many Congressional districts, as they possibly can. THat's why we see stupidity like we saw with the engines in Boehner's district that the military stated over and over again they didn't want, but Boehner pushed them through anyway. It is a MESS.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 03:25PM
I believe the military is ready to defend us 24/7, but, I don't see much in the way of threats it is "defending" us from. It is also in a whole lot of places that have absolutely nothing to do with "defending" us, and can only be construed as "offensive" posturing. The movers and shakers behind the M-I Complex are not stupid. They have spread their manufacturing facilities as widely, and into as many Congressional districts, as they possibly can. THat's why we see stupidity like we saw with the engines in Boehner's district that the military stated over and over again they didn't want, but Boehner pushed them through anyway. It is a MESS.
You don't "see" because maybe you're a retired firefighter? They are way beyond my and your pay grade.
What about in the civilian sector. You guys are so anti military. You can't even think about the crap that goes on in the civilian side. Wow! Amazing.
By the way. Explain it to Bob.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 03, 2016, 03:38PM
You don't "see" because maybe you're a retired firefighter? They are way beyond my and your pay grade.
So per you own words, you don't know either. Funny how you still adamantly believe when you also don't see these threats that somehow require us to basically match the military of the rest of the world combined.

Quote
What about in the civilian sector. You guys are so anti military. You can't even think about the crap that goes on in the civilian side. Wow! Amazing.
By the way. Explain it to Bob.
The civilian sector does not have near the level of waste of the military. Military waste has been an ongoing joke for decades. As far as Russ explaining anything to me, I think the rest of us are still waiting for you to explain your own positions.

"You are just so wrong" is pretty much meaningless. Especially when you admit yourself that you have no clue what the military actually does to defend us.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 03, 2016, 03:42PM
How about an audit on the war on poverty, the billions given to the dept of education, and the IRS?

Why just single out the military?

In 2015, Education received 70 billion dollars.

The IRS had 10.9 billion.


The military has 598.5 billion - more than half of all discretionary spending in the federal budget.


Which do you think wastes more money overall?


hint: We could take the entirety of the budget deficit out of just the military funding, and still fund our military more than any other country out there.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 03:48PM
So per you own words, you don't know either. Funny how you still adamantly believe when you also don't see these threats that somehow require us to basically match the military of the rest of the world combined.
The civilian sector does not have near the level of waste of the military. Military waste has been an ongoing joke for decades. As far as Russ explaining anything to me, I think the rest of us are still waiting for you to explain your own positions.

"You are just so wrong" is pretty much meaningless. Especially when you admit yourself that you have no clue what the military actually does to defend us.
Bob. "Especially when you admit yourself that you have no clue what the military actually does to defend us."
You are clueless.
I refuse to respond to you anymore. And the mods don't like it either. neither do more mature posters here.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 03, 2016, 03:51PM
I have been amazed at the support for Trump in the primaries because I thought that the average American, even Republicans, were smarter. Although I do note that quite a few posters here think they are not. What I can tell you is that the standing of the US as a world leader has been severely bruised by what is going on. I am not just talking about Australia - we would like to think, one of your closest allies - but by all the European and S.E. Asian press.
I actually amazed, but for a different reason. I'm amazed the GOP establishment keeps trying their damnedest to throw his out.

He is the personification of GOP policies, approaches, and posturing for the past decade.

For the life of me, I can't fathom why they hate him so much and why they think one of two blowhard, not even single term, no record to speak of, can't get their own party behind them senators would be a better choice.

So I am somewhat encouraged to read today that former US presidential candidate Mitt Romney has given a blistering rebuke of Donald Trump. He is apparently leading an attempt by the party establishment to halt the rise of the outspoken New York billionaire. I really hope that is the case although it seems to me it might be too late.
He just adds to a chorus, which upon hearing, Trump supporters dig in deeper.

The truth is that the GOP establishment has miserably failed to bring anything of worth in the last decade in this country. Even now, they hold both chambers of congress and yet are expected to set yet another record for least productive congress in history. Their own base is coming around to this and doesn't trust them a lick.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 03, 2016, 03:53PM
Bob. "Especially when you admit yourself that you have no clue what the military actually does to defend us."
You are clueless.
Those are your words. You said it was beyond both yours and Russ' pay grade to see what they do to defend us.

So yes, per your own words, you don't know what they do to defend us "24/7" despite being so adamant that they do.

I refuse to respond to you anymore. And the mods don't like it either. neither do more mature posters here.
Then how about this: just stop responding. You don't need to pitch a childish tantrum and whine about how you won't respond while responding anyhow.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Mar 03, 2016, 04:03PM
You don't "see" because maybe you're a retired firefighter?

I thought Russ was an EMT. Curious?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 04:15PM
Those are your words. You said it was beyond both yours and Russ' pay grade to see what they do to defend us.

So yes, per your own words, you don't know what they do to defend us "24/7" despite being so adamant that they do.
Then how about this: just stop responding. You don't need to pitch a childish tantrum and whine about how you won't respond while responding anyhow.
Last time Bob
This is Russ's quote
" ...don't see much in the way of threats it is "defending" us from." Now where in that quote is there your insinuation,"You said it was beyond both yours and Russ' pay grade to see what they do to defend us."
I know what we do to defend us but I don't know the threats, especially on a daily basis.  They are usually top secret.
Do you see your error?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 03, 2016, 04:22PM
Last time Bob
Didn't you just say "I refuse to respond to you anymore"? That looks an awful lot like a response.

This is Russ's quote ... Now where in that quote is there your insinuation,"You said it was beyond both yours and Russ' pay grade to see what they do to defend us."
I did not say they were Russ's words. They are yours
You don't "see" because maybe you're a retired firefighter? They are way beyond my and your pay grade.


Otherwise, if you don't know the threats, it's impossible to say whether the measures we use to defend against them are effective or completely useless.

It'd be like a doctor writing a prescription to help a patient when he doesn't know the condition.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 03, 2016, 04:38PM
I thought Russ was an EMT. Curious?
He saved lives one way or another.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 03, 2016, 04:53PM
Sorry Doug. You are just so wrong. Are you trying to be funny?

Ron which of the statements in my post can you show are wrong?

That that the world has become economically interdependent?
That Europe depends on Russia for natural gas and Russia depends on European banks?
That the failure of the Axis was in their inability to simultaneously sustain production and wage war?
 
In a reply to another post you refer to "believing" in the military. I leave belief with faith and theology. My faith warns me to not put my faith in "Powers and Principalities" such as the military and the govt. I try to stick to the facts of history and economics when dealing with "The World".

As for humor, that would be inappropriate when we are talking of situations were people are dying. My nephew lives in Paris and was out of touch with his friends on the day of the bombing which caused a minor panic but thankfully was due to his poor communication habits. If anything I was pissed at the failure of militarists in providing him security.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 04, 2016, 05:29AM
And, so.....THis week's effort;

The Corporate Establishment Media

Almost a century ago, in their campaign against FDR, our first Democratic Socialist President, the oligarchs who control the GOP started using the term “socialist” as a swear word to scare their followers. It was about 50 years later they coined the term “Liberal Media” because accurate reportage of fact tends, as pointed out by Stephen Colbert, to have a liberal bias.

Anyone looking at the “mainstream” media reporting of last week’s “Super Tuesday” primaries objectively, with open eyes and mind, and with at least the intelligence of the average Trump supporter, knows we do not have a “liberal”, or, for that matter, “conservative” media. What we have is a media that is 100% representative of the Corporate Establishment that owns both it and our government.

For months now, we have been deluged with non-stop coverage of “The Donald”. This is the Corporate wing of the media capitalizing on the reality show nature of Trump’s campaign. The oligarchs know Trump has virtually no chance of winning the general, Presidential election, but have recently realized the Frankenstein monster they have created might actually win the nomination of one of their parties.

This has thrown the Establishment wing of the GOP into a panic, and we are seeing some truly ugly discourse and mud-slinging as they attempt to rein in the juggernaut they released. And, of course, the Corporate wing is in full profit mode playing, both sides of that street.

On the other side, the Corporate Establishment Oligarchs have realized, since the start of his campaign, what a danger Bernie Sanders and his agenda are to their control in this country. He has experienced a virtual media blackout, and the CE Media have all but anointed Hillary Clinton as the Democrat’s nominee, despite the fact she has less of a lead over Sanders at this point in the primaries than she had over Barrack Obama in 2008.

Clinton has won in states that a Democrat has no chance to win in November. Sanders is winning and/ or tying in the swing states the Democrats need if they are going to prevail and hold the White House. His campaign continues to steamroll all of the others at raising money, even though he doesn’t have the billionaire backers the others do. It is his campaign that has momentum.

You won’t see that in the Corporate Establishment Media. They have too much to lose.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 04, 2016, 07:33AM
And, so.....THis week's effort;

The Corporate Establishment Media

Almost a century ago, in their campaign against FDR, our first Democratic Socialist President, the oligarchs who control the GOP started using the term “socialist” as a swear word to scare their followers. It was about 50 years later they coined the term “Liberal Media” because accurate reportage of fact tends, as pointed out by Stephen Colbert, to have a liberal bias.

Anyone looking at the “mainstream” media reporting of last week’s “Super Tuesday” primaries objectively, with open eyes and mind, and with at least the intelligence of the average Trump supporter, knows we do not have a “liberal”, or, for that matter, “conservative” media. What we have is a media that is 100% representative of the Corporate Establishment that owns both it and our government.

For months now, we have been deluged with non-stop coverage of “The Donald”. This is the Corporate wing of the media capitalizing on the reality show nature of Trump’s campaign. The oligarchs know Trump has virtually no chance of winning the general, Presidential election, but have recently realized the Frankenstein monster they have created might actually win the nomination of one of their parties.

This has thrown the Establishment wing of the GOP into a panic, and we are seeing some truly ugly discourse and mud-slinging as they attempt to rein in the juggernaut they released. And, of course, the Corporate wing is in full profit mode playing, both sides of that street.

On the other side, the Corporate Establishment Oligarchs have realized, since the start of his campaign, what a danger Bernie Sanders and his agenda are to their control in this country. He has experienced a virtual media blackout, and the CE Media have all but anointed Hillary Clinton as the Democrat’s nominee, despite the fact she has less of a lead over Sanders at this point in the primaries than she had over Barrack Obama in 2008.

Clinton has won in states that a Democrat has no chance to win in November. Sanders is winning and/ or tying in the swing states the Democrats need if they are going to prevail and hold the White House. His campaign continues to steamroll all of the others at raising money, even though he doesn’t have the billionaire backers the others do. It is his campaign that has momentum.

You won’t see that in the Corporate Establishment Media. They have too much to lose.

You do realize Bernie can't win.
The corporations and most of the super delegates are behind Clinton.  Cronyism at its best.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 04, 2016, 07:59AM
You do realize Bernie can't win.
The corporations and most of the super delegates are behind Clinton.  Cronyism at its best.

Clinton had the same lead in "super-delegates" against Obama. Until she didn't.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 04, 2016, 08:06AM
Clinton had the same lead in "super-delegates" against Obama. Until she didn't.
it doesn't matter.  people are starting to realize that Bernies ideas  are sheer lunacy.  And she has paid for the super delegates.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 04, 2016, 09:09AM
people are starting to realize that Bernies ideas  are sheer lunacy. 
People keep saying that, republicans especially... but when asked what ideas are so crazy, it's funny how the answer is basically silence.

His ideas are really pretty grounded and reasonable. They just don't focus on further increasing the corporate bloat in this country and enriching the wealthy even more... so lunacy!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 04, 2016, 09:25AM
People keep saying that, republicans especially... but when asked what ideas are so crazy, it's funny how the answer is basically silence.

His ideas are really pretty grounded and reasonable. They just don't focus on further increasing the corporate bloat in this country and enriching the wealthy even more... so lunacy!
Then you need to read more. I've posted at least three analysis on this forum.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 04, 2016, 09:29AM
Then you need to read more. I've posted at least three analysis on this forum.
Saying such things as "Bernies ideas  are sheer lunacy" is not an analysis. Those are just empty words.

An analysis would be something like how offering free tuition is such a bad or loony idea. Or why we shouldn't hold wall street accountable for their risky excesses. etc. Those just aren't out there, really.

The best I've seen is how not starting the next wave of our economy off with six figure debt they can't legally get rid of is asking for handouts, while at the same time defending cutting the wealthy's taxes in half... because... well... it's a good thing to do. Huh? That's not analysis either. Simply one mantra conflicting with another mantra, and choosing the one you like because you like it.


And didn't you just say:
I refuse to respond to you anymore.
and
Last time Bob
Seems like an awful lot of responses for someone who's done responding.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 04, 2016, 10:07AM
it doesn't matter.  people are starting to realize that Bernies ideas  are sheer lunacy.  And she has paid for the super delegates.

over 60% of Americans continue to support the items in Sander's agenda anytime they are polled on them. And, he is creaming everybody in raising funds even though he has no billionaires suporting him.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 04, 2016, 11:34AM
Then you need to read more. I've posted at least three analysis on this forum.

Have you read this one?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1SBH6lIyCZIT2tSWHFvb2cycGc/view?usp=docslist_api

 This one is good in that it uses CBO numbers and standard economic models to predict outcomes.
Of course it has been torn apart by the  mainstream and right wing press but they haven't disproved the analysis or process only taken parts out of context and shown they don't work. Something like taking a wheel off a car and then declaring the car can't work because analysis of the wheel found no engine or passenger compartment.

DRB
Seola Creek.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 04, 2016, 12:19PM
Russ, the real Swing states are yet to vote.  We'll have to see how Bernie does with respect to Hillary in Illinois, Ohio, Florida, and Minnesota.

I'm waiting to see how the rest of the country goes.  New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts are not good models for the rest of the country.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 04, 2016, 12:23PM
over 60% of Americans continue to support the items in Sander's agenda anytime they are polled on them. And, he is creaming everybody in raising funds even though he has no billionaires suporting him.
Bernie has multimillionaires supporting him. Of course over 60% support his ideas. "Free" stuff resonates for everyone. But people who live in the real world know better. Just lie trump supporters that think his crazy ideas will work. They live in a fantasy world too.
It's insane to vote for Bernie or trump or Cruz. Their  plans are DOA.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 04, 2016, 12:29PM
Have you read this one?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B1SBH6lIyCZIT2tSWHFvb2cycGc/view?usp=docslist_api

 This one is good in that it uses CBO numbers and standard economic models to predict outcomes.
Of course it has been torn apart by the  mainstream and right wing press but they haven't disproved the analysis or process only taken parts out of context and shown they don't work. Something like taking a wheel off a car and then declaring the car can't work because analysis of the wheel found no engine or passenger compartment.

DRB
Seola Creek.
Friedman is one left  wing economist that loves Bernie.
Read a rebuttal from other left leaning economists.
http://blog.independent.org/2016/02/25/whos-the-bigger-witch-doctor-krugman-or-gerald-friedman/


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 04, 2016, 12:35PM
over 60% of Americans continue to support the items in Sander's agenda anytime they are polled on them.
Which is why it doesn't make much sense to term him a loony radical or some such. His ideas really aren't far out there. Certainly no more than the GOP non-sense they are out there spouting.

The worst Ronky seems to have is free college tuition. I tend against that idea for my own reasons, but there's plenty of examples of it in other countries as an effective model. Certainly much cheaper and more effective than all the lowering of upper tax rates the GOP pushes for.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 04, 2016, 12:39PM
Russ, the real Swing states are yet to vote.  We'll have to see how Bernie does with respect to Hillary in Illinois, Ohio, Florida, and Minnesota.

I'm waiting to see how the rest of the country goes.  New Hampshire, Vermont, and Massachusetts are not good models for the rest of the country.

Um, Bernie has already beaten Clinton in Minnesota. And Colorado. And Oklahoma. He has an uphill battle here, but there are a LOT of folks out beating the bushes for him. It looks like he may well win Michigan.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 04, 2016, 12:46PM
Um, Bernie has already beaten Clinton in Minnesota. And Colorado. And Oklahoma. He has an uphill battle here, but there are a LOT of folks out beating the bushes for him. It looks like he may well win Michigan.
minnesota is not a swing state. And of course he won in Colorado.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 04, 2016, 01:38PM
Friedman is one left  wing economist that loves Bernie.
Read a rebuttal from other left leaning economists.
http://blog.independent.org/2016/02/25/whos-the-bigger-witch-doctor-krugman-or-gerald-friedman/
Ronk
The problem with these critiques is that these "economic advisors of a former president" (let's see Obama is still in office so former means W or Bill) are Hilary supporters and are nit picking Friedman's report. Murphy has his own spin on it.

That's why I was saying go to this original source and judge it on its merits not what some spinmeister says. Friedman chose to use CBO stats and standard methodologies so that no one can question his outcomes. This leaves only sniping at him based on imagined prejudices.

DRB
Seola Creek.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 04, 2016, 03:19PM
Ronk
 Friedman chose to use CBO stats and standard methodologies so that no one can question his outcomes.

DRB
Seola Creek.

Everyone knows the CBO is a leftist puppet organization.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Mar 04, 2016, 05:13PM
I thought Milton Friedman was was a conservative economist.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 04, 2016, 06:55PM
I thought Milton Friedman was was a conservative economist.

It's his evil twin Gerald. Or, maybe, his son attempting to correct the sins of the father. Kind of like W in Iraq.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 04, 2016, 11:29PM
I thought Milton Friedman was was a conservative economist.
its not Milton.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 05, 2016, 12:17AM
Ronk
The problem with these critiques is that these "economic advisors of a former president" (let's see Obama is still in office so former means W or Bill) are Hilary supporters and are nit picking Friedman's report. Murphy has his own spin on it.

That's why I was saying go to this original source and judge it on its merits not what some spinmeister says. Friedman chose to use CBO stats and standard methodologies so that no one can question his outcomes. This leaves only sniping at him based on imagined prejudices.

DRB
Seola Creek.
But Friedman is a partisan. He wants Bernie.
I'm not an economist but one can certainly look at and use whatever info they want. I happen to believe that Friedman is wrong.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 05, 2016, 04:28AM
But Friedman is a partisan. He wants Bernie.
I'm not an economist but one can certainly look at and use whatever info they want. I happen to believe that Friedman is wrong.

So, which of the CBO statistics or standard methodologies is it that you think he utilized incorrectly?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 05, 2016, 08:41AM
So, which of the CBO statistics or standard methodologies is it that you think he utilized incorrectly?
The ones that say bernie's "horrible" plan has many benefits. Duh!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 05, 2016, 04:48PM
The ones that say bernie's "horrible" plan has many benefits. Duh!

Well, that is the level of discourse we are conditioned to expect.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 05, 2016, 09:34PM
Well, that is the level of discourse we are conditioned to expect.

from you two yes. I'm having a conversation with Doug and you two children start pulling it down the close the thread lane.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 06, 2016, 04:58AM
I reiterate......


So, which of the CBO statistics or standard methodologies is it that you think he utilized incorrectly?



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 06, 2016, 07:57AM
But Friedman is a partisan. He wants Bernie.
I'm not an economist but one can certainly look at and use whatever info they want. I happen to believe that Friedman is wrong.
Ronk
I don't doubt Friedman's enthusiasm for Sen. Sanders.

In terms of this study  I think he was very scrupulous in choosing to use the CBO data and methods to avoid charges of bias. The Congressional Budget Office is set up by Congress as a neutral process so that various proposals can be compared. To be acceptable to both sides it represents a compromise. I'm sure that as a compromise it has detractors on both sides but it is generally accepted as producing valid data for the purpose of comparison.

This morning I was reading a foot note by Friedman about his choice for the multiplier to calculate the effect of increased wages generating increased spending and the impact on the economy. He states how he chose a conservative value a depreciated it over the 10 years of projectedions. From this it is clear that he  chose the CBO system of data and methodology so that there could be no questions about the outcomes. He did not "Cook the books" to get the outcomes he wanted but chose the CBO system because it is widely accepted as being valid for comparison of budget proposals.

You can say that "Friedman is wrong" but his outcomes, never the less are still valid.

As I said before, the critiques in NYTimes etc. have not attacked his methodology (in itself a defacto proof that they are valid) but have taken parts of the proposal and nitpicked them out of context of the whole. This is an intellectually dubious taking of pot shots which is designed to distract you from the validity of Friedman's conclusions.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 07, 2016, 05:02PM
from you two yes. I'm having a conversation with Doug and you two children start pulling it down the close the thread lane.
Really? So what actual fault do you find with his analysis? None, except that it comes to a result you don't like?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 07, 2016, 07:27PM
And, therein lies the rub. In several different posts and responses the question has been asked,

So, which of the CBO statistics or standard methodologies is it that you think he utilized incorrectly?
,

and there has no effort what so ever to engage on the substantive details of the issue. It is like attempting to nail jello to a wall to get any kind of intellectual feed back on a substantive level from almost anyone who calls or considers themselves a "Conservative", whether here or on any social media.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 07, 2016, 10:14PM
And, therein lies the rub. In several different posts and responses the question has been asked,
,

and there has no effort what so ever to engage on the substantive details of the issue. It is like attempting to nail jello to a wall to get any kind of intellectual feed back on a substantive level from almost anyone who calls or considers themselves a "Conservative", whether here or on any social media.
im not retired. I am on vacation. And I'm not getting cheap dental or medical work in a foreign country.
No other conservatives post here because they have no patience for ignorance and silly left wing antics.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 08, 2016, 03:59AM
im not retired. I am on vacation. And I'm not getting cheap dental or medical work in a foreign country.
No other conservatives post here because they have no patience for ignorance and silly left wing antics.

Jello to the wall. And, it was inexpensive, not cheap. THere is a difference.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 08, 2016, 04:54AM
im not retired. I am on vacation. And I'm not getting cheap dental or medical work in a foreign country.
No other conservatives post here because they have no patience for ignorance and silly left wing antics.

Just to be clear, you're saying no other conservatives are participating much at all in PP, and that your posting frequency in here is due to being on vacation, and, as compared to other conservatives, your uniquely high degree of patience with liberals.
 
Does that sum up those comments fairly well?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 08, 2016, 01:00PM
Jello to the wall. And, it was inexpensive, not cheap. THere is a difference.

So it's ok to go to another country, not pay tax, get it inexpensive (cheap) to save money on dental or medical work but it's not ok for businesses to do the same. Why? I've redone dental work from Mexico, Ukraine, Russia, Great Britain, Costa Rica, Grenada, Niger, Saudi Arabia and others I can't remember. 99% of it is unacceptable to me. And most of my peers.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 08, 2016, 03:35PM
I've redone dental work from Mexico, Ukraine, Russia, Great Britain, Costa Rica, Grenada, Niger, Saudi Arabia and others I can't remember. 99% of it is unacceptable to me. And most of my peers.
Well yeah, that's why it had to be redone. You really think you're going to see the good results? Or having dental work in country doesn't carry potential for similar poor work?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 08, 2016, 04:23PM
Well yeah, that's why it had to be redone. You really think you're going to see the good results? Or having dental work in country doesn't carry potential for similar poor work?
Yes. I've seen ok results from some countries. One implant from Costa Rica that was pretty good. I redo dentistry done in the US too. But you miss the point because you love to disagree with me.
"Having dental or medical work done in another country to save money is ok but businesses doing manufacturing in other countries to save money is not". Hypocritical? Yup.
Got it? Good.
Off to dinner.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 08, 2016, 08:48PM
"Having dental or medical work done in another country to save money is ok but businesses doing manufacturing in other countries to save money is not". Hypocritical? Yup.
Got it? Good.
Off to dinner.
(Having some cheese and toast for dessert.)
Ronk
I think the problem people are having with your comparison is that it's beyound applies to apples or apples to oranges more like apples to sawing wood. That's why it gets a lot of ? Responses.
I posted this anecdote last year.
A former employer of mine was asked to sponsor a Swedish dentist who wanted to immigrate to the US. His case was denied,he would be doing work an American dentist could do. That he would be earning $100,000 in the US vs $70,000 in Swedan was seen to be his real motivation.(made up numbers in about the right ratio.

What I took away from that was a nice comparison. The same dentist doing the same work could make nearly 50% more by moving from Sweden to the US. I think this gives a useful comparison for explaining the justice of a progressive income tax. The worker is the same, the work is the same but moving from one country to another has the advantage of a 42% wage increase. So with the worker and work as constants it can be seen that here is an economic advantage to working in the US. It therefore follows that if you work in the US you should pay taxes to help maintain our advantageous country in proportion to the economic advantage your residency provides to you.

The trouble I have with off shore manufacturing is that the manufacturers have the advantage of living in the US and selling their product here but by shipping profits offshore they evade paying taxes in proportion the great economic advantage provided to them by doing business in the US.

DRB
Seola Creek.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 09, 2016, 01:23AM
Well yeah, that's why it had to be redone. You really think you're going to see the good results? Or having dental work in country doesn't carry potential for similar poor work?

Excellent point. It's a selection error--his sample is self-selecting for bad work that needs to be redone.

Also a confirmation bias. If be had a 'redo' from an American dentist, it would be a bad dentist. If it's a Mexican dentist, it's a bad country.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 09, 2016, 04:59AM
Excellent point. It's a selection error--his sample is self-selecting for bad work that needs to be redone.
 
Also a confirmation bias. If be had a 'redo' from an American dentist, it would be a bad dentist. If it's a Mexican dentist, it's a bad country.

This seems to be a far more prevalent characteristic of what goes down in the US Public Square these days, and also seems to have a lot to do with the quality of the social climate. I'm not sure if it's a real phenomenon or if it's just my own perception angle though.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 09, 2016, 07:24AM
Excellent point. It's a selection error--his sample is self-selecting for bad work that needs to be redone.

Also a confirmation bias. If be had a 'redo' from an American dentist, it would be a bad dentist. If it's a Mexican dentist, it's a bad country.
Argumentative. It's  poor training. Not for all. Just most.
Try thinking first. Do some research. Then comment.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 09, 2016, 07:26AM

This seems to be a far more prevalent characteristic of what goes down in the US Public Square these days, and also seems to have a lot to do with the quality of the social climate. I'm not sure if it's a real phenomenon or if it's just my own perception angle though.
i have no idea what you are talking about. As usual.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 09, 2016, 07:44AM
Argumentative.
And your post is what? informative? Please.

It's  poor training. Not for all. Just most.
And incompetence has a play too.

But then again, you are dealing with the problem cases. The ones that went off quite well have no need to see you. Self-selecting sample.

"Having dental or medical work done in another country to save money is ok but businesses doing manufacturing in other countries to save money is not". Hypocritical?
Argumentative. And completely off the mark comparison. Douglas Fur said why pretty well. 

Short answer, no, it is not hypocritical. No more so than you wanting to keep dentistry work local but are fine with shipping manufacturing and tax base overseas anyhow.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 09, 2016, 08:16AM
And your post is what? informative? Please.
And incompetence has a play too.

But then again, you are dealing with the problem cases. The ones that went off quite well have no need to see you. Self-selecting sample.
Argumentative. And completely off the mark comparison. Douglas Fur said why pretty well. 

Short answer, no, it is not hypocritical. No more so than you wanting to keep dentistry work local but are fine with shipping manufacturing and tax base overseas anyhow.
You guys are once a gaining discussing and making assumptions on things you have no clue about and then present them as facts.
"Informative. Please." Is just more silliness from bob.
You have no idea wha cases I deal with. Some are problems and some aren't. I said I redo lots of overseas work. Just less redos than stateside work.
Who said I was fine with shipping manufacturing overseas? Not I.
Russ complains we ship manufacturing overseas but his own personal "manufacturing" is done overseas. That's hypocritical.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 09, 2016, 09:18AM
You guys are once a gaining discussing and making assumptions on things you have no clue about and then present them as facts.
"Informative? Please." Is just more silliness from bob. 
Argumentative. In a real sense. Your reply adds nothing of merit or value, and seeks only to muddy the waters and call other posters names. The comparison is invalid to start with, and your comments about quality are irrelevant and likely heavily skewed anyhow for reasons that are pretty obvious.

Is Russ a hypocrite? No. At least, not in how you tried to set up your post to personally attack him as one, no.

Didn't you throw a tantrum recently and declare that you wouldn't response to my posts anymore? And then declare that your subsequent response was the last last response? Are you ever actually going to hold to your declarations?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 09, 2016, 10:30AM
To anyone but Bob
Russ is a hypocrite. That's not name calling. He hasn't justified why going over seas to get medical or dental care is ok but sending manufacturing overseas is not. That's hypocritical which makes the one performing that act a hypocrite.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 09, 2016, 10:44AM
To anyone but Bob
Seriously Ronk? You can get over your fascination with me and just don't respond if you aren't going to respond or at the very least quit throwing tantrums as responses to me. You seem to have a terrible need for the last word.


Russ is a hypocrite.
Nope.

That's not name calling.
That's exactly what it is.

He hasn't justified why going over seas to get medical or dental care is ok but sending manufacturing overseas is not.
Those two things aren't remotely related nor have you justified how they are, so why would he then need to justify what you say his position is?

That's hypocritical which makes the one performing that act a hypocrite.
Nope.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 09, 2016, 11:07AM
Speaking of bad dentistry, it doesn't just happen in backwater countries...
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/03/08/469659294/dentist-of-horror-allegedly-mutilated-scores-of-patients-in-france


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 09, 2016, 11:08AM
Ronk and B0B: Please stop quibbling.  NOW!.  How about you both take a little time off the forum.  I'm not going to give you a ban, but you are both itching for one.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 09, 2016, 11:31AM
Ronk and B0B: Please stop quibbling.  NOW!.  How about you both take a little time off the forum.  I'm not going to give you a ban, but you are both itching for one.

I'm a bit at a loss. In what way am I violating ToU?

Ronk, I get. He has taken a topic off kilter expressly to directly insult another poster, specifically calling Russ a hypocrite. Along the way, he has also attacked PM, bvb, and myself.

But in this, I have attempted to avoid insulting Ronk personally in return and have only stood up for other posters against blatant violations of ToU.

If you need a direct foil to also find guilty in order to ban Ronkny, whether I have done anything or not, go for it. The last time he was banned there was actual meaningful political discussion again, and not just off topic trolling. But really, of the two of us, one can actually discuss normally with support and reason and be civil.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 09, 2016, 12:46PM
Ronk and B0B: Please stop quibbling.  NOW!.  How about you both take a little time off the forum.  I'm not going to give you a ban, but you are both itching for one.
Thank you.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 09, 2016, 07:06PM
Argumentative.

It is indeed argumentative (in the precise sense of presenting an argument). Nothing wrong with that.

Isn't it inevitable that the 're-do' work you see from other nations is self-selected? After all, good work from other countries doesn't need to be redone.

It also makes sense that you wouldn't attribute poor work from the US to the country of origin, but might do so with out-of-country work.

Quote
Try thinking first.

I do a pretty good job of thinking, now that you mention it. I can't speak to your qualifications to recognize it.

Quote
i have no idea what you are talking about. As usual.

I rest my case.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 09, 2016, 08:07PM
It is indeed argumentative (in the precise sense of presenting an argument). Nothing wrong with that.

Isn't it inevitable that the 're-do' work you see from other nations is self-selected? After all, good work from other countries doesn't need to be redone.

It also makes sense that you wouldn't attribute poor work from the US to the country of origin, but might do so with out-of-country work.

I do a pretty good job of thinking, now that you mention it. I can't speak to your qualifications to recognize it.

I rest my case.

i object! :D
Redo work from other countries is at a higher rate than from the US. And it tends to be creatively awful. Very memorable. Not American disasters. Like wood screws in teeth. Silver fillings condensed into the gum and bone. Implants placed in impossible to restore areas. Implants that never stood a chance. Most of the American work I redo is sloppy. It pisses me off. But it's rarely ridiculously creative.   Not ridiculous like foreign work.  Some foreign work is amazing. Better than mine.  Especially a guy from Switzerland named pascal Magne.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: TromPhysics on Mar 10, 2016, 04:37AM
i object! :D
Redo work from other countries is at a higher rate than from the US. And it tends to be creatively awful. Very memorable. Not American disasters. Like wood screws in teeth. Silver fillings condensed into the gum and bone. Implants placed in impossible to restore areas. Implants that never stood a chance. Most of the American work I redo is sloppy. It pisses me off. But it's rarely ridiculously creative.   Not ridiculous like foreign work.  Some foreign work is amazing. Better than mine.  Especially a guy from Switzerland named pascal Magne.

Just curious, are these ridiculous foreign jobs from sort of standard practitioners over there? As in, that work is coming from properly licensed and referred orthodontists following the laws in their respective countries, or is it from the shady guy in the back alley who'll do you for 10 bucks?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ronkny on Mar 10, 2016, 07:10AM
Just curious, are these ridiculous foreign jobs from sort of standard practitioners over there? As in, that work is coming from properly licensed and referred orthodontists following the laws in their respective countries, or is it from the shady guy in the back alley who'll do you for 10 bucks?
I really don't know. Lay people, for the most part, have no idea what they have had done in their mouth and by who. They just usually say that the dentist was mean or rough or nice. No matter what their dentistry looks like.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 11, 2016, 04:48AM
He hasn't justified why going over seas to get medical or dental care is ok but sending manufacturing overseas is not. That's hypocritical which makes the one performing that act a hypocrite.

So you want a free market economy ... until it comes to dentistry? or maybe only a one way free market--consumers have to go with local sources for goods and services if they're available? Don't see how anything could go wrong there ... ?
 
Is running a business a right? Should business owners expect locals to support them, regardless, or do they have to earn their business? Should businesses be patronized by locals as an ethical imperative, or is it right for proprietors to have to earn the business they get? What would happen to the domestic market if most businesses moved their production overseas?
 
 --
 
To simplify the model ... a town where half the population is employed by two production facilities, each employing an equal number of people. Half of the products are sold locally, half are exported. What happens to the town if one of those facilities moves its production elsewhere? What happens if one operation decides to charge double for its products? What happens if half of the population decides to get the goods these facilities produce elsewhere?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 11, 2016, 06:11AM

"Having dental or medical work done in another country to save money is ok but businesses doing manufacturing in other countries to save money is not". Hypocritical?


I'lll cede the point. Doug gave one pretty good argument. My take would be we have to live, and work with/ in  with the system we have, not the one we would like to have. It's kind of like Warren Buffet or Trump advocating for changes to the tax laws because they get an unfair advantage, but taking the breaks the system gives them none the less. I'll advocate for improving the system as much as I am able, but I will continue to utilize the system as it exists to my greatest advantage.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 11, 2016, 06:12AM
This week's column;

Private Parts

I am SOOOO ready for these primaries to be over. The GOP race continues to devolve, sinking ever deeper into a morass of political slime unequaled in my lifetime. It saddens me to think what the rest of the world thinks of our once great country when they see the leading candidates of one of our major political parties arguing over their private parts in what is supposed to be a debate over policy and program.

And, it’s not as if those exchanges were outliers in what was otherwise a focused discussion of the problems this country faces. Other than the ongoing stoking of the fear and hatred towards immigrants and Muslims, the most common words bandied about were “con-man”, “liar”, and “fraud”.

The GOP is more fractured than anytime since the campaign of 1964, when extremist Barry Goldwater won the nomination and was clobbered in the general election by Lyndon Johnson. Today they face a true dilemna. Their base has lost faith in the establishment, and is almost certainly going to nominate Donald Trump to be the candidate of the party.

The establishment recognizes the disaster a Trump nomination would be for their chances in the general election, but their own rules, established in the wake of Mitt Romney’s defeat in 2012, leave them very little chance of derailing Trump’s momentum. They are also saddled with the reality that their other candidates are little different than Trump in their policy extremism, only differing in their levels of bombast and hyperbole.

In the debate, the “establishment” candidates took turns vilifying Donald Trump and doing everything they could think of to de-legitimize him. It had all the maturity and decorum of a middle-school lunchroom with no faculty supervision. The level of discourse was more suited to a reality show on a fringe network than a debate for the highest office in the land.

And, then, at the end of the debate, after spending the entire evening defaming and tearing down Mr. Trump, saying over and over and over he was not suited to be our President, all three of his opponents swore that if he won the nomination they would support him. The cognitive dissonance of that is hard to wrap one’s head around.

On the other side, we are seeing a campaign centered on issues and policy. It is hard to imagine this country choosing the first over the latter.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 11, 2016, 11:00AM
I find it interesting that among the "disaffected" they support first Trump and then Sanders, or vice versa.  What an odd pair to choose between!

I saw a cute editorial cartoon:

(http://media.cagle.com/73/2016/03/10/176561_600.jpg)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 15, 2016, 05:26PM
I find it interesting that among the "disaffected" they support first Trump and then Sanders, or vice versa.  What an odd pair to choose between!

I saw a cute editorial cartoon:


Not so odd, really. I have a very liberal sister whose son is very conservative. What they have in common is isolationism, opposition to free trade and the displacement of low skill workers, and disdain of excessive political influence of party elites and the rich. Bernie and Trump have hit all of these notes, from different angles of course.

It makes much more sense for Bernie's voters to like Trump than for evangelicals to like him.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 16, 2016, 05:22PM
Hilary says we're "not Denmark"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/news/denmark-regains-title-of-happiest-country/
Tell me again why that's a good thing.
(Do not spend time explaining the literal difference. I'm a sentimental patriot who gives a big sigh of relief whenever I get back from abroad.)
What I'm talking about is why not adopt a few common sense social programs which are proven to work strengthening the country and supporting the people.
Duff


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 16, 2016, 05:45PM
What I'm talking about is why not adopt a few common sense social programs which are proven to work strengthening the country and supporting the people.
Because those go against the people and companies that fund her...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 16, 2016, 06:52PM
Because those go against the people and companies that fund her...
Sounds like two good reasons to vote for Sanders.
DRB


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 22, 2016, 06:10AM
On the road, with spotty wi-fi.... This week's effort;

TRAVELING

The great American philosopher, Mark Twain, once opined, “Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” He was a very wise man. I suspect this theory could be applied to a large portion of the folks in America who are so virulently supporting Donald Drumpf ( the family name when they immigrated, before one of his predecessors "Americanized" it).

Sitting to breakfast in a rainy tiki hut, at the top of a cliff overlooking an ocean that does not beat on any shore in the United States, it would be easy to forget the ugliness and rancor that is defining the political process back home these days. Well, it would be, except, the peoples of the world are noticing it and are not amused.

My Balinese waitress asks, shyly, "May I ask about your country? This Trump? Is it real, or is it just a joke?". The Aussie was a bit more direct; "Have you Yanks lost your bloody minds.". Variations on these themes have been voiced by Europeans as well. Our "reality show" of an election process is drawing a world-wide audience, and they do not appear to be impressed.

My answer to the sweet waitress was that it was both. Yes, Drumpf is real, and yes it is a joke. I didn't go any deeper into it with her than that. I left out that the joke is on the Republican Party establishment, who for generations have been promising the working class of their party a piece of the pie without ever having any intention of actually sharing the wealth, and it is on those misguided working class stiffs who believe they have found, in Drumpf, someone who will see they get a piece of the pie.

For the Aussie, and the rest, my response was, "Well, yes, sadly, a bunch of us have". It is the only rational explanation that makes sense of such a large portion of our population supporting a demagogue whose every position flies in the face of every value and ideal for which this nation is supposed to stand.

 I tell them not to worry. We are going through an ugly period, but this is the country that came together, TWICE, to elect Barrack Obama by large majorities.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 22, 2016, 09:36AM
If you like what happened in Brussells, then you must keep voting with the liberals and demos. This election, that would be for Hillary.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 22, 2016, 10:10AM
I suggest readers muster up some reserves of self-discipline and try to resist lavishing trolling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) with precisely the attention it begs for. It's something that kinda has to happen in order to improve the social climate in here, and it can't be very entertaining or interesting to go down the trolling path anyway. Does anyone have any doubts, right now, as to how productive such a "discussion" might be?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 22, 2016, 11:01AM
I suggest readers muster up some reserves of self-discipline and try to resist lavishing trolling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll) with precisely the attention it begs for. It's something that kinda has to happen in order to improve the social climate in here, and it can't be very entertaining or interesting to go down the trolling path anyway. Does anyone have any doubts, right now, as to how productive such a "discussion" might be?

From Hillary:

"It's unrealistic to say we're going to completely shut down our borders to everyone. That would stop commerce,"

"We've got to work this through consistent with our values."

"Hillary Clinton's Brussels Remarks Show How She'd Deal With Terrorism"

"The Muslim migrants, including any number of jihadis, must continue to stream into Europe, for to stop them would end the “dream of a whole, free Europe” and not be “consistent with our values.” 

Brussels is a shining star in Europe, but their plight is a direct consequence of allowing Muslims into their country without requiring them to adapt to their western values, and create their own colonies. That same policy is what the demos here in our country call for everyday.

You can call this 'trolling' if you want to, as for me, I care for my country enough that I will speak the truth.

 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 22, 2016, 11:22AM
There are Jihadi Muslims and Christian Militias.  The Militias take over bird sanctuaries and shoot anybody who comes near their turf.  They also blow up Federal buildings.  There are lots of Muslims who are not Jihadi; in fact, they are embarrassed by the actions of those few.

As the English learned 20 years ago dealing with IRA bombers, you can't really screen them out.  Not effectively.

Incidentally, Dusty, if you want to keep the Jihadis out of the US, you need to seal the Canadian border; they don't seem to be coming up from Mexico.  In fact, all the 9-11 hijackers came in from Canada on airplanes.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 22, 2016, 11:32AM
There are Jihadi Muslims and Christian Militias.  The Militias take over bird sanctuaries and shoot anybody who comes near their turf.  They also blow up Federal buildings.  There are lots of Muslims who are not Jihadi; in fact, they are embarrassed by the actions of those few.

As the English learned 20 years ago dealing with IRA bombers, you can't really screen them out.  Not effectively.

Incidentally, Dusty, if you want to keep the Jihadis out of the US, you need to seal the Canadian border; they don't seem to be coming up from Mexico.  In fact, all the 9-11 hijackers came in from Canada on airplanes.

Post a response by the Muslim community to the Brussel's attacks. Choose from anywhere in the world.

BTW, American militias are not Christian. I haven't seen any of them advertising that their attacks are on behalf of Christianity, whereas, all these jihadists DO attribute their attacks to their Muslim religion. Mohammad did preach these attacks while Jesus never did.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 22, 2016, 12:23PM
If you like what happened in Brussells, then you must keep voting with the liberals and demos. This election, that would be for Hillary.
Really? Because president Trump would be much better? Your party blinders are showing...

BTW, American militias are not Christian. I haven't seen any of them advertising that their attacks are on behalf of Christianity, whereas, all these jihadists DO attribute their attacks to their Muslim religion. Mohammad did preach these attacks while Jesus never did.
So the attacks on clinics and people that provide abortions are what then? Even the KKK used the bible as their supposed support for many of their domestic acts of terrorism back in the day. You may think it's perverted and not true to the message of the bible, but many muslims think the same of these attackers.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 22, 2016, 12:47PM
Really? Because president Trump would be much better? Your party blinders are showing...
So the attacks on clinics and people that provide abortions are what then? Even the KKK used the bible as their supposed support for many of their domestic acts of terrorism back in the day. You may think it's perverted and not true to the message of the bible, but many muslims think the same of these attackers.

How long has it been since anyone attacked abortion clinics? Is it an epidemic? Come on man.

KKK goes back even farther.

How many responses have you seen today from Muslims regarding Brussels?

You can't equate Muslim terrorists with Christians. It doesn't work for those who know better.

But please, show me the Muslim responses . . . .


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Mar 22, 2016, 02:18PM
EU lost?

http://www.smh.com.au/world/jihadi-threat-in-europe-now-beyond-control-of-authorities-20160322-gnovoj.html

Excerpt:

Belgium's violent Islamic extremism problem has reached such a scale it now appears to be beyond the ability of European authorities to control, terrorism experts have said in the wake of the latest bomb attacks in Brussels.
The coordinated attacks on the airport and train station in the Belgian capital were very likely carried out by jihadists who were part of the same extensive network as the Paris attackers, the experts said.

Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs has urged people to "reconsider your need to travel" to Belgium - an escalation on its previous travel advice to show "a high degree of caution".

Foreign Minister Julie Bishop issued a swift condemnation of the attacks and said her department was "urgently seeking" to find out if any Australians were affected.

The fact that authorities were still failing to contain the wave of violent extremism even after the November Paris attacks and subsequent massive manhunt that netted the final Paris plotter, Salah Ab-deslam, just five days ago suggested the problem was beyond the security agencies of Belgium and its neighbors, experts said.

Edwin Bakker, director of the Center for Terrorism and Counter Terrorism at Leiden University in The Hague, said with the highest number per capita of extremists traveling to and from Syria, Belgium seemed to have lost control of the problem.

"Apparently the intelligence position is not good enough to find these people or even to find the most wanted terrorist in Europe," he said of Abdeslam, the Belgian-born French suspect who was arrested on Friday after a four-month manhunt.

"It took them several months and this guy was not hiding on his own. That makes it a bit embarrassing for the intelligence community in Belgium.

End Excerpt.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/jihadi-threat-in-europe-now-beyond-control-of-authorities-20160322-gnovoj.html#ixzz43fVGw5Lm

Wake Up, Europe.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 22, 2016, 03:44PM
How long has it been since anyone attacked abortion clinics?
4 months ago. Really just a few days earlier than the last muslim attack on americans... And yes, the attacker was evangelical christian.

Between the two of them, the single focus of christian attacks on abortion clinics and people in them far outweighs the number of attacks muslims have led against americans overall.

Funny how the one that happens much more is downplayed, while the other one - which is quite rare - is the only focus.

You can't equate Muslim terrorists with Christians. It doesn't work for those who know better.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2016/03/cruz-names-anti-muslim-paranoic-as-top-adviser.html

No, you can't. Muslim terrorist have far less blood on their hands and far less power to wield their weapons with.

But please, show me the Muslim responses....
You mean like http://www.huffingtonpost.com/muqtedar-khan/terror-in-brussels-a-musl_b_9525048.html ?

Yes, Muslims in general condemn this type of violence. Yes, Muslims in general condemn terrorism. And yes, they even do it specifically. You seem to want to pigeonhole all Muslims as violent extremists. And really that's says much more about the eye than what it sees.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 22, 2016, 04:55PM

I don't think HRC is any more liberal regarding terrorists than W or Geo.I. Democrats since FDR have had foreign policies more similar to the Republicans than not. A strict policy of unquestioning support for Israel and military intervention to secure oil supplies.

Most of the Muslims in Europe have run away from the terror and warfare in the Middle East. They want nothing to do with these people. The terrorists live as parasites on the Muslim community feeding on the discontented and malcontents.

If your dog gets fleas you don't build a wall to keep it out of your house. You get appropriate flea medication from your vet and your dog stays home, protecting your community. 

This article points out that Salafists, like these terrorists are a minority of Islam and the Jihadi are a minority of that minority. So it makes little sense to label all Muslims as the problem.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salafi_movement#Association_with_.27Wahhabism.27

This article has a variety of Muslim reactions. That the terrorists hide out in that community is part of their abuse of the community. They see immigrant Muslims as traitors and care little if they are hurt or killed. If they can turn a few suckers into suicide bombers its no skin off their nose.
That they are effective in hiding there is not a sign of collusion but that they are well trained in security. The mujahedeen in Afghanistan were trained by the CIA to fight the Russians. This training was rolled over by al kiaida and has been refinded fighting against the US for over 35 years.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/22/molenbeek-reacts-brussels-salah-abdeslam-arrest-people-expected-a-let-up

The 12steppers define insanity as "repeating failed behavior and expecting a different outcome." We have been repeating the same behavior, military intervention, in the Middle East for 100 years with no change in outcome. Isn't it time to try something different?

DRB
Seola Creek

If you like what happened in Brussells, then you must keep voting with the liberals and demos. This election, that would be for Hillary.
Not Bernie. Note how he avoided going to and was not invited to, the AIPAC convention where all the other candidates toed the line of unquestioning support for Israel and competed to sound the most rabidly militant. Maybe Senator Sanders is sending a message that it's time for a change. It took an anticommunist Republican to change our foreign policy with China. So maybe a Jew will have the chutzpah to change our policy in the Middle East.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 23, 2016, 06:54AM
How many responses have you seen today from Muslims regarding Brussels?
 
You can't equate Muslim terrorists with Christians. It doesn't work for those who know better.
 
But please, show me the Muslim responses . . . .

Obama condemned them. Don't most who are hard core fans of the Faux type media sources that ensure they won't see Muslims condemning Islamist terrorist attacks believe Obama's a Muslim? Just not for this purpose I suppose ... that would fit the pattern.
 
Here's an Islamic group condemning the attacks though (http://www.religionnews.com/2016/03/22/belgian-religious-groups-condemn-brussels-attacks/) (first I've stumbled upon as far as I know--haven't been looking for them).
 
Here's what The Google tells me when I ask it about this (https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en#hl=en&q=Islam+Muslim+condemn+Brussels) (specifically searched for "Islam Muslim condemn Brussels" so other search parameters would find more).


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 23, 2016, 09:27AM
Here's another point of view on Brussels.
http://mic.com/articles/138546/just-days-before-belgium-here-s-the-terrorist-attack-you-didn-t-hear-about#.JbG3KXJMi


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 23, 2016, 12:05PM
This trope that Muslims never condemn terror attacks perpetrated in the name of Islam is plainly untrue, but the people who say it don't really care--like most of that stuff, it just sounds good to them.

I've read many, many articles written about the moderate Muslim response to terrorism, just glancing at a daily paper. In any case, a cursory Google search will show lots of examples.

Putting that aside, common sense would tell you that it's not true. What are the odds that out of 1.6 billion Muslims, of all stripes and beliefs, not one would condemn an attack of innocents? It's obviously untrue.

This is a perfect example of people who believe something because it appeals to them rather than caring if it's true.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 23, 2016, 12:07PM
If you like what happened in Brussells, then you must keep voting with the liberals and demos. This election, that would be for Hillary.

History doesn't bear you out. Perhaps you'd like to determine which Presidential party has lost more Americans in terrorist acts.

If voting for GOP presidential candidates is supposed to keep us safe, it surely hasn't worked well.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Mar 23, 2016, 12:09PM
It's kind of based on the idea that all muslims (1.6B people) are some kind of unified block that are responsible for one another. Do methodists in Ohio need to make a public statement every time they beat or kill a gay person in Uganda?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 23, 2016, 12:10PM
From Hillary:

"The Muslim migrants, including any number of jihadis, must continue to stream into Europe, for to stop them would end the “dream of a whole, free Europe” and not be “consistent with our values.” 

Another one of your fake quotes. I challenge you to find a link to a direct quote from Hillary saying that. I assume once you know it's fake you'll edit your post, because you're an honest person.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 23, 2016, 12:13PM
It's kind of based on the idea that all muslims (1.6B people) are some kind of unified block that are responsible for one another. Do methodists in Ohio need to make a public statement every time they beat or kill a gay person in Uganda?

Of course you're right--no one asks each individual Christian to condemn any acts of violence committed in the name of Christianity, although many do. You would expect the same of Muslims and indeed it happens every time there's an attack.

Then a bunch of people pipe up and say, "Muslims never speak out against these attacks" which is patently untrue.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 23, 2016, 01:13PM
But please, show me the Muslim responses . . . .

Here are a bunch, in one article. When I googled 'Muslims condemn terror attacks' this came up at the top, with lots more choices below it, which gives me the idea that you're not genuinely curious about this subject in the first place, nor trying very hard to determine whether what you're saying is accurate.

http://www.bustle.com/articles/149432-7-times-muslims-denounced-terror


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 23, 2016, 11:49PM
You can call this 'trolling' if you want to, as for me, I care for my country enough that I will speak the truth.
 

Well, so far your 'truth-telling' consists of:
1) A Hillary 'quote' that Hillary never said.
2) A nonsensical and counterfactual assertion about the record of the two political parties vis-a-vis terrorist attacks.
3) An entirely implausible description of Muslim response to terror attacks.

Surely it takes some of the fun out of truth-telling if none of it is actually true. Or maybe not, in your world.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 24, 2016, 05:07AM
Here are a bunch, in one article. When I googled 'Muslims condemn terror attacks' this came up at the top, with lots more choices below it, which gives me the idea that you're not genuinely curious about this subject in the first place, nor trying very hard to determine whether what you're saying is accurate.
 
http://www.bustle.com/articles/149432-7-times-muslims-denounced-terror

This touches on why critical thinking is taking honesty seriously (http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,59172.0.html) (IOW if you take honesty seriously you'll make an effort to think critically ... which must include recognizing, acknowledging and actually making a genuine effort to address the various known issues human brain owners have to deal with).


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: NJSouth on Mar 24, 2016, 05:39AM
It's kind of based on the idea that all muslims (1.6B people) are some kind of unified block that are responsible for one another. Do methodists in Ohio need to make a public statement every time they beat or kill a gay person in Uganda?

     Yeah... great comparison. Any chance you could provide me with more than ONE account of a Methodist beating an Ugandan do death simply because he was gay or wouldn't join the Methodist church???


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 24, 2016, 06:16AM
     Yeah... great comparison. Any chance you could provide me with more than ONE account of a Methodist beating an Ugandan do death simply because he was gay or wouldn't join the Methodist church???
You mean like helping an attempt to make being gay an offense punishable by death? Because that was fun...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 24, 2016, 06:31AM
Well, so far your 'truth-telling' consists of:
1) A Hillary 'quote' that Hillary never said.
I posted accurate Hillary quotes

Quote
2) A nonsensical and counterfactual assertion about the record of the two political parties vis-a-vis terrorist attacks.
Just reporting the facts
Quote

3) An entirely implausible description of Muslim response to terror attacks.

Nope.
Quote

Surely it takes some of the fun out of truth-telling if none of it is actually true. Or maybe not, in your world.


That must be what drives you. LOL!


<Edit: Fixed quotes>


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Mar 24, 2016, 07:08AM
     Yeah... great comparison. Any chance you could provide me with more than ONE account of a Methodist beating an Ugandan do death simply because he was gay or wouldn't join the Methodist church???

Um we all have access to google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=craven+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=christian+violence+in+africa


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: NJSouth on Mar 24, 2016, 08:13AM
Um we all have access to google:

https://www.google.com/search?q=craven+definition&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8#q=christian+violence+in+africa

   YOU specifically said "Mehtodists" I didn't read any of that in the first six articles. I did see people who were being attacked by Muslims defending themselves but I guess I'm one of those radicals. Also Uganda was never mentioned nor anyone being gay. Thanks for stirring the pot though.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Mar 24, 2016, 08:32AM
   YOU specifically said "Mehtodists" I didn't read any of that in the first six articles. I did see people who were being attacked by Muslims defending themselves but I guess I'm one of those radicals. Also Uganda was never mentioned nor anyone being gay. Thanks for stirring the pot though.

You're kind of making my point for me... I was demonstrating how ludicrous it is to treat 1.6 billion people like they're all just one monolithic entity. If they were then then they wouldn't be fighting one another etc in the first place.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 24, 2016, 09:43AM
I posted accurate Hillary quotes
...

Are you aware of several fake Hillary quotes out there?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/23/hillary-clinton-quotes-Internet-complete/


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: NJSouth on Mar 24, 2016, 09:44AM
You know nothing of Islam then or the 1.6 billion people who believe in it... Good luck with all that... I'm out.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/islamic-state-video-calls-jihad-brussels-blasts-142945523.html


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Mar 24, 2016, 09:50AM
Are you aware of several fake Hillary quotes out there?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/23/hillary-clinton-quotes-Internet-complete/

 “What difference, at this point, does it make?”   :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 24, 2016, 10:09AM
I posted accurate Hillary quotes

Sorry, no. If you did, you'd post a link to this "quote", which you posted:

"The Muslim migrants, including any number of jihadis, must continue to stream into Europe, for to stop them would end the “dream of a whole, free Europe” and not be “consistent with our values.”

Hillary never said it. Prove me wrong.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 24, 2016, 10:12AM
“What difference, at this point, does it make?”   :evil:

Too true. We have drifted a long way from our "foreign correspondent's" post from the sunny shores of Bali in which he reports that people outside of US think we've gone nuts this election cycle.

But maybe our descent into playground name calling here is proving that perception.
If Russ is reading this while on vacation and were to share it as an example of American political discourse how would we be perceived?

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 24, 2016, 10:30AM
I posted accurate Hillary quotes
Just reporting the facts

What facts? The fact' that no Muslims condemned the Brussels attack? You challenged everyone to post links proving you wrong, and I did it.

Or the 'fact' that Republican presidents keep us safer from terrorism? You can do the math in your head that proves that wrong.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 24, 2016, 10:39AM
DDickerson:

Quote
Post a response by the Muslim community to the Brussel's attacks. Choose from anywhere in the world.
Quote
But please, show me the Muslim responses . . . .

Here are some more:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/attacks-709230-muslim-ayloush.html
http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-attacks-islamic-community/
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/63426/maltese_muslims_condemn_brussels_bombings#.VvQli_krIdU
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11610524

Now that you know you're wrong, of course you'll quit saying it.

Just kidding.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 24, 2016, 10:50AM
How long has it been since anyone attacked abortion clinics? Is it an epidemic? Come on man.


Yeah, it's ancient history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Springs_Planned_Parenthood_shooting


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 24, 2016, 10:54AM
Bit of a tangent I know, and dramatically overshadowed by the bombing, but Bernie won overall in the last round of primaries this past week. Hope he can continue that trend!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 24, 2016, 04:47PM
Bit of a tangent I know, and dramatically overshadowed by the bombing, but Bernie won overall in the last round of primaries this past week. Hope he can continue that trend!

I take that as a sign that some of us can see beyond the red baiting and listen to what he's saying.
What he is saying is common sense and practical. You educate your workers and your country is richer for it. You provide comprehensive healthcare for your workers and they are more productive. He is honest to say that some may pay higher taxes to help pay for this. While the other guy promotes impossible fences and says Mexico will pay for it. And who will profit from the fence? Bechtel and the usual security contractors will. And when Mexico says "take this lettuce and shove it." when The Donald sends them the bill who pays for it? You and me, like we paid for his bankruptcies.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 24, 2016, 09:36PM
DDickerson:

Here are some more:
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/attacks-709230-muslim-ayloush.html
http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-attacks-islamic-community/
http://www.maltatoday.com.mt/news/national/63426/maltese_muslims_condemn_brussels_bombings#.VvQli_krIdU
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11610524

Now that you know you're wrong, of course you'll quit saying it.

Just kidding.

The response is deftly quiet. I see not one of the Muslim leaders speaking out. Actually, if the so called moderate Muslims are so innocent, why don't they clean up their own mess. Why do they just stand by and do nothing? Why don't the leaders in the Mosques rat out the terrorists among them? Are they that ignorant of their own?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Mar 24, 2016, 10:37PM
Why aren't the Pastors and Priests ratting out the abortion clinic shooters?  Don't they know their own people?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 24, 2016, 11:51PM
The response is deftly quiet. I see not one of the Muslim leaders speaking out. Actually, if the so called moderate Muslims are so innocent, why don't they clean up their own mess. Why do they just stand by and do nothing? Why don't the leaders in the Mosques rat out the terrorists among them? Are they that ignorant of their own?

A randomly selected quote:
Quote
“These were barbaric acts,” said Said Kamli, the director of the Federation of Islamic Organisations in Europe, adding that the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) and its terrorist activities do not represent Islam. “We do not support people who do these things. We hope they face justice.”

Deftly quiet? It sounds pretty strongly worded to me.

As usual, you have formed an opinion that is amenable to your prejudices and simply ignore all evidence.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 24, 2016, 11:55PM
The response is deftly quiet. I see not one of the Muslim leaders speaking out. Actually, if the so called moderate Muslims are so innocent, why don't they clean up their own mess. Why do they just stand by and do nothing? Why don't the leaders in the Mosques rat out the terrorists among them? Are they that ignorant of their own?

First of all, what exactly are they supposed to do? Do you feel personally responsible for every crime committed by a person claiming to be a Christian, and moreover, do you have resources to personally prevent a crime before it's committed by one of your co-religionists?

For what it's worth, moderate, non-violent Muslim leaders are indeed one of our best resources in learning about potential terrorists, both in this country and abroad.  The fact that they don't successfully prevent every Muslim-committed crime does not mean that they're indifferent to it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 25, 2016, 06:02AM
Why aren't the Pastors and Priests ratting out the abortion clinic shooters?  Don't they know their own people?

I don't think that the people that attack abortion clinics are attacking all over the world like the Muslim terrorists are doing. The entire world, the western civilization, north Africa, you name it. There is no equivalence between them and the abortion clinic attackers.

I don't think you can find a video of an abortion doctor or nurse getting their heads chopped off. They're not being lined up and killed.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: NJSouth on Mar 25, 2016, 06:25AM
The Belgian Bombers were Muslim
The Paris Attackers were Muslim
The San Bernandino Shooters were Muslim
The Jordainian Pilot murderers were Muslim
The Shoe Bomber was Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was Muslim
The Underwear Bomber was Muslim
The USS Cole Bombers were Muslim
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslim
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslim
The London Subway/Bus Bombers were Muslim
The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslim
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslim
The Pan Am Flight #93 Bombers were Muslim
The Beirut US Embassy Bombers were Muslim
The Benghazi Attackers were Muslim
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslim
The Beslan Russian School Slaughter were Muslim
The September 11th High-jackers were Muslim

Now I'm JUST spitt balling here BUT maybe there is something in common with these attackers and the peaceful religion of Islam

  Oh and if you note, with the exception of one or two of these this is only two decades worth and NOT a comprehensive list.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Mar 25, 2016, 06:36AM
The Belgian Bombers were Muslim
The Paris Attackers were Muslim
The San Bernandino Shooters were Muslim
The Jordainian Pilot murderers were Muslim
The Shoe Bomber was Muslim
The Beltway Snipers were Muslims
The Fort Hood Shooter was Muslim
The Underwear Bomber was Muslim
The USS Cole Bombers were Muslim
The Madrid Train Bombers were Muslim
The Bali Nightclub Bombers were Muslim
The London Subway/Bus Bombers were Muslim
The Moscow Theater Attackers were Muslim
The Boston Marathon Bombers were Muslim
The Pan Am Flight #93 Bombers were Muslim
The Beirut US Embassy Bombers were Muslim
The Benghazi Attackers were Muslim
The Israeli Olympic Team Attackers were Muslim
The Beslan Russian School Slaughter were Muslim
The September 11th High-jackers were Muslim

Now I'm JUST spitt balling here BUT maybe there is something in common with these attackers and the peaceful religion of Islam

  Oh and if you note, with the exception of one or two of these this is only two decades worth and NOT a comprehensive list.

Hey, if we're allowed to go international and back in time 40 years then there's quite an impressive list of christian butchers we can put together... Exactly what would you call America's little foray into Iraq? With over 600,000 dead it's not hard to make an argument that the west is attacking the middle east...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 25, 2016, 06:44AM
Hey, if we're allowed to go international and back in time 40 years then there's quite an impressive list of christian butchers we can put together... Exactly what would you call America's little foray into Iraq? With over 600,000 dead it's not hard to make an argument that the west is attacking the middle east...

Oh yeah. Those Christians are going all over the world killing people. LOL!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: NJSouth on Mar 25, 2016, 06:59AM
Hey, if we're allowed to go international and back in time 40 years then there's quite an impressive list of christian butchers we can put together... Exactly what would you call America's little foray into Iraq? With over 600,000 dead it's not hard to make an argument that the west is attacking the middle east...

     War is war... two or more governments or factions fighting each other with GENERALLY the same weaponry on OPEN battlefields, NOT attacking INNOCENT people minding their OWN DAMN business trying to live their lives. War has been a part of history since we've been on the earth. Terrorism is just weak ass people who can't fight fair.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Mar 25, 2016, 07:28AM
Teaser:
"Of course most American Muslims vote Democrat. That’s why the Democratic party and Obama are so friendly to them. They call Republicans Islamophobes, racists and bigots for calling out Muslim terrorists. But that’s always been political posturing. And they’re very careful not to ever associate terrorism with Islam or Muslims in America. They don’t want to offend Muslims, because Muslims are a pretty significant voting bloc. "


http://lastresistance.com/poll-70-of-american-muslims-vote-democrat-only-11-vote-republican/

https://www.cair.com/press-center/press-releases/13365-cair-releases-results-of-muslim-voter-survey-ahead-of-primary-elections.html





Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 25, 2016, 08:23AM
I don't think that the people that attack abortion clinics are attacking all over the world like the Muslim terrorists are doing.
You didn't seem to think they were attacking anyone until proven wrong on that too.

"Of course most American Muslims vote Democrat.
Well, yes. Have you heard the xenophobic, racist, and biggoted talk coming from the leaders of the GOP recently, not to mention their followers?

At this point, most any group but white male christians vote a majority democrat.

It'd be pretty masochistic for them to vote republican these days.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Mar 25, 2016, 08:31AM
Terrorism is just weak ass people who can't fight fair.
Because aging small arms against missiles launched from a hundred miles away, or against a remote piloted drone is a fair fight?

The goal of war isn't to fight fair. It's to win.

War is war... two or more governments or factions fighting each other with GENERALLY the same weaponry on OPEN battlefields, NOT attacking INNOCENT people minding their OWN DAMN business trying to live their lives.
In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the weaponry was drastically different, most of those attacked were innocents or people defending their homes, and most just wanted to live their lives. So what does that make us?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: NJSouth on Mar 25, 2016, 08:44AM
Because aging small arms against missiles launched from a hundred miles away, or against a remote piloted drone is a fair fight?

The goal of war isn't to fight fair. It's to win.
 In both Iraq and Afghanistan, the weaponry was drastically different, most of those attacked were innocents or people defending their homes, and most just wanted to live their lives. So what does that make us?

    Who said war was fair... boo hoo.

     And I'm taking it you served in Iraq and Afghanistan to back up that statement?? Iraq had a modern air force. Surface to Surface and SAMs, Chemical weapons and tanks... Cut me a break with your "Aging small arms" argument. Do a little research please.... please. Afghanistan held off the Russians for years and did a pretty good battle with the US. "Innocent" muslims who molest children, beat women, kill gays, kill anyone who doesn't agree with them... Yeah. Innocent. As the Original Post says... "WAKE UP!"


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 25, 2016, 09:19AM
Who said war was fair... boo hoo.

Someone just up above brought it up (http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,90506.msg1128562.html#msg1128562), complaining that "terrorism is just weak ass people who can't fight fair."


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: NJSouth on Mar 25, 2016, 10:50AM

Someone just up above brought it up (http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,90506.msg1128562.html#msg1128562), complaining that "terrorism is just weak ass people who can't fight fair."

  I see what you did there.... Guess I could have worded that differently.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 25, 2016, 11:28AM
Now I'm JUST spitt balling here BUT maybe there is something in common with these attackers and the peaceful religion of Islam
 

I don't think you have to subscribe to the Pollyanna-ish view that Islam is entirely a peaceful religion, or anywhere near it, to hold a more nuanced view on our best way forward.

Islam is, in my opinion, a corrosive force in the world, because of the way it is practiced today by many of its adherents. The same is true of Christianity, but to a much lesser extent, so I'll not make a false equivalency between the two. If you could wave a magic wand and make the belief in a certain religion go away (but only one), you would be foolish not to choose Islam.

That having been said, you don't want to just ignore reality and pretend that moderate Muslims don't exist. DDickerson has simply decided that Muslims don't cooperate with law enforcement and that they don't condemn terror attacks, and he is indifferent as to the accuracy and veracity of those beliefs. There is plenty of evidence that he's wrong, and it's been presented here.

The danger of such delusional and self-satisfying belief is that moderate Muslims are important to us. Secular (or relatively secular) gov'ts in Muslim-dominant nations are potential allies to us in a region where we have few. Moderate, assimilated Muslims in the US can be our first warning of potential activity. The communities where these jihadists come from are often heavily assimilated, and these young men often have distinctly non-radical parents. It does us no good to pointlessly alienate these people by pretending they don't exist. Additionally, when we disrespect moderate Muslims, here and abroad, we weaken their voice within their own communities where we have a stake in the 'hearts and minds' battle.

You're always better off believing something if it's actually true, and that's why DDickerson's blinkered world view is dangerous. The motive here--to convince people that the other religion is wrong and his is right--makes all of us less safe, including those of us who acknowledge the obvious reality that both religions are untrue.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 25, 2016, 12:04PM
I see what you did there.... Guess I could have worded that differently.

Heh ...
 
Just noting that the use of "fair" in the followups may not reflect personal views so much as that this is where they got the wording. None of the comments suggest anyone thinks war, much less terrorism, is fair or is somehow supposed to be.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Mar 25, 2016, 01:02PM
     War is war... two or more governments or factions fighting each other with GENERALLY the same weaponry on OPEN battlefields, NOT attacking INNOCENT people minding their OWN DAMN business trying to live their lives. War has been a part of history since we've been on the earth. Terrorism is just weak ass people who can't fight fair.

Are you somehow under the impression that Iraq had a 600,000 person military or do you not think that women and children exist in other countries? Especially countries that didn't attack us. I'll remind you that the U.S. was born via people not fighting fair so that they could beat an overpowering adversary.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: NJSouth on Mar 26, 2016, 04:21AM
   Wow... amazing comparison... Why do I come here????.... Thanks for scaring me away. Feel free to post next time your a victim.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Mar 26, 2016, 10:28AM
   Wow... amazing comparison... Why do I come here????.... Thanks for scaring me away. Feel free to post next time your a victim.

In all fairness, he's just disagreeing with you. That shouldn't be sufficient to scare you away.

I think his is a valid point. We tend to view the actions of others through a different lens. We generally view insurrections and revolutions as lawless, and so did King George III and many American loyalists. We view terrorists (they'd say 'freedom fighters') as criminals operating beyond the rules of war, but we kill non-combatants, too, and not just a few. The main practical objection to terrorism is that it's asymmetrical--it reduces our advantage. During the American Revolution, asymmetry was a good thing, as we were taught in school.

During the 'last good war', allied actions included the Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and the firebombing of Dresden, during none of which were we particularly effective at sorting out non-combatants. It's a natural impulse to say, 'Now that the world's saved, no more of that from anyone', but you can't expect people who didn't feel as though they came out on top to blithely go along with that.

I'm not making a false equivalency here--the US is plainly more moral than ISIS. But presidential candidates who advocate more torture to their cheering admirers are narrowing that gap.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Mar 26, 2016, 01:45PM
I'm not making a false equivalency here--the US is plainly more moral than ISIS. But presidential candidates who advocate more torture to their cheering admirers are narrowing that gap.

And it seems closing that gap is one of the things Trumpers specifically like about him.
 
There seems to be a pattern developing here, and the crowd of adoring fans seems to be thinning out as that happens.
 
That's a good thing, obviously--rational conservatives with substance and integrity are feeling compelled to assert themselves, and Trump's population of supporters is suffering in a directly inverse correlation with the process.
 
Trump may turn out to be the enema the GOP has needed for decades. (More an emetic I guess, but enema makes the point more effectively I think.)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 31, 2016, 08:38PM
Wow, nice! Not been dropping in because of spotty wi-fi and more interesting activities, but, a nice discourse. And now......

Hate and Fear

Fear and hate. Hate and fear. It is what those who profit from dividing the peoples of the world traffic in. It is what was obvious in the coverage of the Brussels attacks in the Corporate/ Establishment media. The attacks occurred while I was visiting the world's most populous Muslim country. A country where, I must add, I felt completely safe and secure at all times, as much, or more so, as I would have at home.

While language is a barrier, I did broach the subject with several of the Indonesians I came in contact with. A conversation I had with our driver, Sutraman, was most illuminating, especially his initial response to the question, "What do you think of the bombings?".

He answered with the question, "Which ones?", pointing out that in the past week there had been, in addition to the attacks in Brussels, a series of bombings in Turkey along with the almost daily slaughter being carried out by Muslims on Muslims throughout the Middle East. Why does the US media focus so strongly only on the attacks on westerners? Division? Hate and fear?

He went on.... (Paraphrasing here) There are Muslims who are rigid, and are not accepting of other religions. Their number is small, and they are mostly uneducated. The vast majority of Muslims are "flexible" about religion and are accepting of those who believe otherwise. I have found that to be true on this trip.

Sutraman's take on those carrying out the suicide attacks is that they have " no experience, but much ambition". It took significant dialog to ferret out the meaning of this statement. By experience, he was encompassing a broad range of the basic human experience including education, opportunity, respect and dignity, and access to the basic necessities of life.

"In my country we have that. Though my family did not have the money to send me to university, I was able to work hard and know I could provide for my family so my children's life can be better than mine. They do not have that, but they want it."

Folks, it is not about religion. It is about power and control, of both the economic and political stripe. Those who make bombs (the USA is the number 1 exporter of international arms) profit when we continue to drop them.  "Fear and hate"or "Experience and ambition"! What makes for a better world?


Sent from my iPad



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Apr 01, 2016, 04:17AM
Folks, it is not about religion. It is about power and control, of both the economic and political stripe. Those who make bombs (the USA is the number 1 exporter of international arms) profit when we continue to drop them.  "Fear and hate"or "Experience and ambition"! What makes for a better world?

It's not about innocuous religion, no, but not all religion is innocuous ... by far.
 
How do you explain people with degrees in engineering from foreign countries flying jets into buildings if it's about "experience" and economics? I agree that there's a rather extreme overemphasis on religion (particularly from those who see things from a problematically extreme religious viewpoint, oddly enough), but it can't be bushed aside simply because there are some concomitant variables. It's a key factor. There's a very clear pattern there, and it's not brilliant to ignore those kinds of things.
 
     Frederick Douglass told in his Narrative how his condition as a slave became worse when his master underwent a religious conversion
     that allowed him to justify slavery as the punishment of the children of Ham. Mark Twain described his mother as a genuinely good person,
     whose soft heart pitied even Satan, but who had no doubt about the legitimacy of slavery, because in years of living in antebellum Missouri
     she had never heard any sermon opposing slavery, but only countless sermons preaching that slavery was God's will. With or without religion,
     good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
   -- Steven Weinberg (http://www.physlink.com/Education/essay_weinberg.cfm)
 
I don't think that covers the matter, and it requires a somewhat broadened definition of "religion" (a functional rather than cosmetic or idealized definition mainly), but the quote makes a strong point.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 01, 2016, 08:16AM

How do you explain people with degrees in engineering from foreign countries flying jets into buildings if it's about "experience" and economics? 
   

If a part of that experience has been having members of ones family killed by a drone, or the industry in which you have your degree shut off to members of your sect, or any number of a million different variables are factored in, religion ibecomes the excuse, not the cause.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 01, 2016, 11:31AM
How do you explain people with degrees in engineering from foreign countries flying jets into buildings if it's about "experience" and economics?


Like Russ said. It's not about the religion. It's about power.

Here's a religious take on it.
"12. For why striving is not to us against flesh and blood [For striving, or battle, is not to us against flesh and blood], but against [the] princes and potentates, against governors of the world of these darknesses, against spiritual things of wickedness, in heavenly things."
Ephesians 6:11-13Wycliffe Bible (WYC)https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Ephesians%206:11-13&version=WYC

This is From the Letter to the Ephesians. A text about the early church's struggle of "how to live in the world but to not be of the world". How do we protect our spirituality from the corrupting influences of the world. The reason I chose this verse from the Wycliffe translation is how he uses the phrase "For striving, or battle, is not to us against flesh and blood" in a sense close to the Islamic sense of Jihad (striving, struggle).
"Flesh and blood" has the sense of kinship we know in frm the phrase "My own flesh and blood."
"princes potentates, and governors" is used in the same sense we know of the powerful in our world.
The concluding phrase "against spiritual things of wickedness, in heavenly things." is "the moral of the story." pointing to the spiritual poverty of seeking power as where we go astray.

This is not then a conflict between flesh and spirit but the conflict between all people created of one flesh and those who hold power over them.

The confusing part is when those who are struggling against power go to the cheap fix of fighting power with power instead of the hard row of Striving/Battle/Jihad fighting against power. They get trapped by the power and become corrupted by it. As Acton put it "Power tends to corrupt and absolute power corrupts absolutely." The name we have now for this corruption is addiction. Power is addictive.

When the 9/11 attackers went into action, they may have thought they were on a spiritual mission but the drug of power had led them to take a path antithetical to their religion.
So they were "Power Trippin'", "drunk with power" and out of touch with their faith.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Apr 01, 2016, 05:04PM
I think you guys are conflating Western culture and religion with Islam ... doesn't work very well. Islam isn't just Christianity in a different package, and Islamic society isn't just the Middle Eastern flavor of Western society. If we maintain our own frameworks when we try to analyze Islam and Muslims, we're not going to do very well--at least not if our goal is for our analysis to reflect reality rather than our own notions and sensibilities.
 
All religion is really just certain aspects of human nature and behavior. I get the strong sense that most people reify it in these discussions--seems pretty damn near universal. We're socialized to do so, although that does seem to be changing--still mostly just a matter of degree though. Religion's not a separate thing unto itself, it's just part of the human condition--it's made of human psychology and sociology. I think it has to be separated from that in order to see it as somehow at fault or not in the sense people tend to argue (i.e. as if it's something outside or other than us/our psychology and sociology). The argument is pretty much always that someone's religious nature can't indict Religion (proper noun), as if they weren't the same thing. Religion (proper noun) is conceptually removed from the person and set apart in an idealized form that doesn't really exist--it's really just the apologist's religious nature repackaged as the religious nature of the subject.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 02, 2016, 07:57AM
Baron
The quotation you used in your previous post seems focused on individuals' adverse experiences of Christianity. I responded to this with a quotation from the Christian tradition based on my experiences.
I went a little long on the theology which may have distracted from my point that
I still agree with Russ' comment that religion is the excuse for violent behavior and not the source of that behavior.

Lord Acton's aphorism correctly identifys the abuse of power as being inherent in the nature of power. How that abuse is rationalized, by nationalism, religion or sexism, doesn't change the basic nature of power as corrupting.

That religion gets thrown into the mix is just the powerful throwing dust in our eyes to distract us from their abuse of power.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Apr 02, 2016, 10:01AM
The quotation you used in your previous post seems focused on individuals' adverse experiences of Christianity. I responded to this with a quotation from the Christian tradition based on my experiences.
I went a little long on the theology which may have distracted from my point that
I still agree with Russ' comment that religion is the excuse for violent behavior and not the source of that behavior.

Lord Acton's aphorism correctly identifys the abuse of power as being inherent in the nature of power. How that abuse is rationalized, by nationalism, religion or sexism, doesn't change the basic nature of power as corrupting.

That religion gets thrown into the mix is just the powerful throwing dust in our eyes to distract us from their abuse of power.

So you think my point disagrees with yours for some reason.
 
Okay ...

It's good you recognize the Frederick Douglass story wasn't about theology (much less the personal theology of anyone today who's involved in such a discussion as this). Theology is a tangent that commonly gets shifted to center stage pretty much any time it's raised in any tangential sense to any topic. Douglass' narrative (and my point in using it) is, however, about the effects religious beliefs and doctrines and dogmas (religion not reified) can have on the way people actually think and behave--how different minds process and manage these things.
 
The narrative is quite transparent in pointing out that when a slave owner went through a religious conversion (in this case it happened to be to Christianity) he found a justification to treat his slaves badly which made things significantly worse for them (a violation of our actual cooperative social nature, which is why it required justification), and that Douglass saw this as a trend in human behavior. The slave owner's power over his slaves obviously didn't change at all, only his religious zeal--his ideological and perceptual framework. That's the whole point.
 
To respond with doctrine and theology (if not just a distraction as you explained, which it normally isn't) is to basically say I'm not taking the point of that at all, but substituting my personal theology for that which was given in order to negate the point on that basis--never mind that it's not a theological issue and not even the theology that would be at issue if it were. Just pointing out that common derailment of such discussions which those of us interested in genuinely discussing this need to be aware of--I'm glad that's not what's happening here. I sincerely thank you for that.
 
A huge aspect of the appeal of religious belief for people like that is often that they not only find an Ultimate Authority and source of justification, but they can also choose to speak for that authority--they get to interpret the Ultimate Authoritative Writ as they see fit. It's a pretty convenient source of validation for those who need one (because to significantly violate our cooperative social nature requires validation, not honoring it), and a lot of people take full advantage. This is still not a theological issue, but a psychological and sociological one.

Which brings us back to:
All religion is really just certain aspects of human nature and behavior. I get the strong sense that most people reify it in these discussions--seems pretty damn near universal. We're socialized to do so, although that does seem to be changing--still mostly just a matter of degree though. Religion's not a separate thing unto itself, it's just part of the human condition--it's made of human psychology and sociology. I think it has to be separated from that in order to see it as somehow at fault or not in the sense people tend to argue (i.e. as if it's something outside or other than us/our psychology and sociology). The argument is pretty much always that someone's religious nature can't indict Religion (proper noun), as if they weren't the same thing. Religion (proper noun) is conceptually removed from the person and set apart in an idealized form that doesn't really exist--it's really just the apologist's religious nature repackaged as the religious nature of the subject.
 
Douglass wasn't saying Christianity is inherently a bad thing, but that religion is like an ideological enzyme that allows people to "digest" a whole lot of nasty, cruel, depraved ugliness should that be of interest to them. To suggest that because good character prevents religion's ideologically enzymatic properties from working this way exonerates the religious aspects of our nature entirely is to basically turn away from the real problem in order to avoid threatening those good people ... as if there's any valid reason it would do so. It protects Religion (reified) and robs humanity of recognition for being the actual source of the better angels of our own nature--humanity is devalued, Religion exalted. That's not healthy--not the best way for us to get a long well with each other.
 
That transposition of the source of character is part of the way we're socialized to think about religion though--part of the shell that shelters the meme from genuine scrutiny. Religion (reified) gets the credit for the good character of good believers, and for those with less than solid character--with problematic personal demons--it gives them a basis upon which to define character as agreement (obedience). What is "good" has been shifted from what's observable and actually natural for us as a cooperative social species, to whatever the believer decides the Ultimate and Absolutely Authoritative Writ means or what God (allegedly) says to them inside their own minds. And if you're actual good nature doesn't like some aspect of such believers' version of goodness/godliness then you have a rebellious spirit, false faith and you're being disobedient to the Ultimate Authority which defines what's good. This is how we get the religious believers who really do love and care for their Fellow Man (most, because it's our nature as a cooperative social species), and still also have those who judge and disdain their Fellow Man if there's any significant disagreement with them--if we have rebellious spirits and/or we're disobedient to [their version of] the Ultimate Authority.
 
 --
 
Now, remembering that religion is not Religion (reified: a thing unto itself, separate from us in some sense) but rather certain aspects of human thinking and behavior, if we transcribe these mentalities and this ideological enzyme into Islam and Middle Eastern culture and it amps up the potential nastiness dramatically (Medieval humanity--Crusaders--with guns and bombs and in a world with nukes). People are still seriously devalued as a matter of course and socialization based upon purely "enzymatic" notions--to the point that they're frequently killed for "dishonoring" their families (the men)--i.e. for having rebellious spirits and for being disobedient to [their version of] the Ultimate Authority, clearly not based upon observation of what's really going on, but rather purely upon nasty enzymatic ideology.
 
So I agree (still, as always) that Religion (reified) isn't The Cause of terrorism (and all sorts of other nastiness), but our religious nature (what religion really is when all the window dressing is removed) does in fact provide those so inclined with the ideological enzyme they need to digest and internalize the notions that justify those behaviors (because thinking and behavior that's significantly contrary to our actual cooperative social nature is what needs justification, not thinking and behavior in accord with it).
 
And worthy of note here--Religion (the institution, both in the informal and formal sense) is only one manifestation of our religious nature. It's the primary and most definitive, but tribalism, nationalism and all sorts of pseudo-religious ideologies are also derived from the same aspects of our nature. So it would be fair to re-name it something that's more palatable, but that wouldn't change the fact that it's what religion really is when you distill down to its core--when you don't reverse the relationship of religion and community, making the latter an aspect of the former (when apologists argue the merits of Religion they almost always really argue for community instead).
 
All of this baggage starts with the sense that Religion needs to be defended as if it's a Thing Unto Itself, separate from human nature (i.e. reifying religion); as if Honesty needed to be defended because there are dishonest people and as if pointing out dishonest thinking and behavior were somehow an attack on Honesty itself. Same thing here with religion (rather, Religion). Religion is in fact just a category of human thinking and behavior, and as diverse and wide-ranging. So there's no such thing as an attack on Religion--that is an attack on religion in any other sense than as aspects of human nature. The idea that Religion isn't at fault, it's the thinking and behavior is functionally the same as the idea that the religious thinking and behavior aren't at fault, it's the religious thinking and behavior (or it's not religion, it's religion--it's not about Honesty, it's about having integrity and not being deceptive). Outside of our own minds there is no actual Religion in the reified sense.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 02, 2016, 05:14PM
It sounds like we agree that religion is the excuse and not the source of terrorism.
It sounds like you have strong convictions about the nature of religion.
If religion is the excuse and not the source then whether we agree about the nature of religion is neither here nor there in discussing the main point.

 I'd cry pax at this point and support going back to Russ' topic from Shangri la which I've lost track of. It seems to have  morphed into something along the lines of all muslims being responsible for the violent actions of a small minority which I don't see as a useful discussion*.

I'd much rather look at Acton's comment on the corrupting nature of power and whether power is addictive as is implied in common expressions such as "being on a power trip" "being drunk on power".

DRB
Seola Creek

*although "blaming" as part of a denial process would be interesting to discuss as indicative of the addictive nature of power


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Apr 02, 2016, 06:13PM
It sounds like we agree that religion is the excuse and not the source of terrorism.
Sort of, but "just an excuse" sidesteps the actual point.
 
It sounds like you have strong convictions about the nature of religion.
I recognize that it's widely reified and it's really just a category of human thinking and behavior.
 
If religion is the excuse and not the source then whether we agree about the nature of religion is neither here nor there in discussing the main point.
Not that simple.

I'd cry pax at this point and support going back to Russ' topic from Shangri la which I've lost track of.
We haven't left it (here it is again (http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,90506.msg1129477.html#msg1129477)). I was taking an issue with Russ' point, also oversimplified.
 
It seems to have  morphed into something along the lines of all muslims being responsible for the violent actions of a small minority which I don't see as a useful discussion*.
Not sure where you got that, but it certainly wasn't from me.
 
I'd much rather look at Acton's comment on the corrupting nature of power and whether power is addictive as is implied in common expressions such as "being on a power trip" "being drunk on power".
Fair enough.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 08, 2016, 05:54AM
Next.......

Sberbank

It is one of the worst kept secrets in the world that the rich have access to accommodations and advantages not available to most people. The latest scandal, being called the “Panama Papers”, just shows, once again, the degree to which this is true.

The release of over 11 million pages of documents from the Panamanian law firm Mossack Fonseca has opened a can of worms showing the degree to which those at the top of the food chain are able hide their assets and avoid paying their fair share of the burden of operating nations and economies  around the world. So far, there has not been much in depth information about Americans implicated in the data dump, but I suspect that will change over time.

What I find to be sad a reflection on the state of the world is the fact the revelations are being met, not with a sense of moral outrage, but with a sense of weary resignation. The practice is so pervasive, and has lead to the power of an international oligarchy, that normal, law abiding citizens around the world feel powerless to do anything about it. When those oligarchs control the electoral process, as they do in the USA, it is hard to hope for any kind of positive action in the face of such grand larceny.

One place where American involvement has been uncovered involves the activities of Russian super-bank. Sberbank. The largest, private financial institution in Russia, Sberbank’s majority stockholder is Russia’s Central Bank, the equivalent of its Federal Reserve. This makes Sberbank a direct, although obfuscated, arm of the Russian government.

Sberbank has subsidiaries in dozens of countries around the world, and has been alleged to have provided funding for Russian separatists fighting to overthrow the government of Ukraine. That this is occurring is really no surprise. What makes it relevant to American politics is the fact this spring the Podesta Group, a US lobbying firm, registered as a lobbyist for Sberbank with the Clerk of the House of Representatives.

The Podesta group is run by brothers John and Tony Podesta. Tony is a major Democratic fund raiser, and John is a former Chief-of-Staff to former President Bill Clinton, and is the campaign chair of Hillary Clinton’s effort to win the Presidency.

While there is nothing inherently illegal in this relationship, it sure doesn’t pass a smell test. We deserve better.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 08, 2016, 08:39AM
Charles Dudley Warner quote: "Politics makes strange bedfellows".  If you are turned off by smarmy associations, don't get in politics.  Politics has often been compared to sausage: "Once you see what goes in, you may never eat it again".

I think we all know that the rich are doing things that we find repugnant for reasons we find self-serving (if not downright selfish).  Getting outraged every time something like this arises will lead to terminal ulcers.

It is interesting to see how wide the net is, though.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 08, 2016, 10:36AM
Getting outraged every time something like this arises will lead to terminal ulcers.
It is interesting to see how wide the net is, though.

Bruce we shouldn't be outraged? If someone broke into your house and stole your favorite horn wouldn't you be outraged? All these tax dodges and excess profit taking steal from us so I think we should be outraged.

To not be outraged risks apathy, belief that the system is broken and we're powerless to change it.

Maybe it's Pollyanna-ish to think my vote makes a difference but the other option seems the road to a punk-ish " Life sucks and then you die." attitude.

Duff


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 08, 2016, 12:04PM
The system is broken and short of an armed uprising we are powerless to fix it.  And I'm not in favor of an armed uprising.

Go ahead and have your terminal ulcer.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 08, 2016, 02:11PM
Well, a true uprising at the ballot box WOULD get the job done. We are still electing people under the auspices of the Constitution, and if we could somehow manifest voter turnout like exists in, say, Denmark or Norway we COULD fix the system. Not gonna hold my breath, but I did hear a very astute 18 year old say that, "We may only be 25% of the population right now, but we are 100% of the future". If, and it is a big IF, their generation would get motivated and involved, the system would get fixed.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Apr 08, 2016, 03:20PM
Well, a true uprising at the ballot box WOULD get the job done. We are still electing people under the auspices of the Constitution, and if we could somehow manifest voter turnout like exists in, say, Denmark or Norway we COULD fix the system. Not gonna hold my breath, but I did hear a very astute 18 year old say that, "We may only be 25% of the population right now, but we are 100% of the future". If, and it is a big IF, their generation would get motivated and involved, the system would get fixed.

Say When!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 08, 2016, 03:46PM
Say When!

"Feel the BERN"!!!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 08, 2016, 04:26PM
Bernie is not a Democrat.  He's not even a member of the Democratic party.

Trump is not a Republican.  For that matter, neither is Cruz.  The Republican party apparat wants nothing to do with either of them.

It looks like you have your "outsiders".  Watch when they try to interact with the real pols...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 09, 2016, 04:10AM
Bernie has been "interacting with the 'real' pols" pretty successfully for 35 years.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 09, 2016, 05:32AM
Bernie has been "interacting with the 'real' pols" pretty successfully for 35 years.

Caucusing is one thing.  Trying to herd the cats to pursue your personal program is quite something else.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 09, 2016, 11:02AM
Well the party line re-publi-cons* are hardly democratic. They say Obama can't nominate a Supreme Court Justice, saying the people need a voice in the process. Sounds pro-democracy on the surface but the people voted in Obama twice and they voted in the current Senate to do their jobs not sit on their thumbs.

So they will be no more obstructionist towards President Sanders than President Clinton.

The dirty truth is "Misogyny Trump's antisemitism". Sen. Sanders is more electable in a race against Trump because a certain slice of the electorate will vote for a male, even a Jew, over a woman. Sanders has a chance to take part of this group whereas Clinton will drive it to Trump.

DRB
Seola Creek

*as in "to repeatedly con the public".

Bernie is not a Democrat.  He's not even a member of the Democratic party.

Trump is not a Republican.  For that matter, neither is Cruz.  The Republican party apparat wants nothing to do with either of them.

It looks like you have your "outsiders".  Watch when they try to interact with the real pols...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 15, 2016, 05:48AM
This week's effort......

Me, Me, Mine....

The reality of our political system and elections is it’s the method by which we, as a society, set our priorities. The party that controls the Congress and the Presidency has control to set those agendas.

Possibly the greatest responsibility of our government is putting in place the regulations and controls that govern how our economy will run and ensuring the GDP is maximized and allocated in the manner that best serves the needs of our society. Our two party system tends to turn that process into a confrontational, winner-take-all melee, often to the detriment of the society as a whole.

At its essence, we have one party that prioritizes the good and the needs of the individual ahead of the needs of the society as a whole, and another that recognizes we are all in this together and prioritizes the needs of the society, “We, the People”, over those of any single individual.

In my mind, it is a matter of maturity of thought, although I realize that is a massive over-simplification. The word “mine” is one of the first words every toddler grasps onto with a degree of understanding. The process of learning ownership isn’t inherent to possession and to share is one of the primary lessons one must learn in the process of socialization and capacity to function in society.

That “me, me, mine” outlook of the toddler is reflected in the attitude that taxation is somehow theft, and the individual has no obligation to support the society as a whole. The more mature outlook is the “we, we, ours” that promotes a society that recognizes there must be a balance between the needs of the individual and the society writ large.

We are the richest country in the history of the world. This election is about who we are. Are we a nation that provides infrastructure, renewable energy, a clean environment, that feeds and educates the poor, and provides healthcare to everyone, or are we a country that continues to allow a very few to siphon our wealth into Panama or Bermuda?

For 50 years one side has held sway and have cut taxes on the “me, me, mine” group at the top of the food chain, while at the same time cutting all of the safety net programs implemented by the “we, we, ours” side through the middle of the last century.
It’s that simple.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Apr 15, 2016, 08:52AM
This week's effort......

Me, Me, Mine....


At its essence, we have one party that prioritizes the good and the needs of the individual ahead of the needs of the society as a whole, and another that recognizes we are all in this together and prioritizes the needs of the society, “We, the People”, over those of any single individual.


Flawed logic right there. Sorry Russ, but flawed ideas leads to flawed rules, regulations, and laws.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Apr 15, 2016, 09:36AM
Flawed logic right there.
How is it flawed?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Apr 15, 2016, 09:42AM
How is it flawed?

????


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 15, 2016, 09:46AM
????

You said it. He's asking you what you think the flaw in the logic is. If you can't say, then your response has no weight.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Apr 15, 2016, 10:23AM
You said it. He's asking you what you think the flaw in the logic is. If you can't say, then your response has no weight.

It would also suggest he doesn't really understand the substance that the claim of flawed logic represents but has only used the form of the complaint as if that alone were a substantial argument, or even may believe it's a refutation based upon the apparent sense that the very notion that anyone is asking for an explanation of the allegation seems puzzling.
 
 --
 
By the way ... it's been relatively very nice and peaceful in here for a while--we even have disagreements without vitriol or histrionics!
 
Very nice!
 
The quality over quantity thing that's going on is a tremendous improvement!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 15, 2016, 12:14PM
Flawed logic right there. Sorry Russ, but flawed ideas leads to flawed rules, regulations, and laws.

ddickerson

The flaw might be oversimplification. The black and white comparison of the parties when it's more like two shades of grey.

However I think the selfishness of "Me,me, mine" as opposed to the altruistic "our" is the core issue here.

One could argue in a Randian sense that selfishness is our true motivation and that altruism is dishonesty selfish in its core assumption of "I know what's best" but that's a pretty mean world to live in.

There's enough reference to altruism as the better way in our cultures' ethics and religions to support altruism "for the Common good" as a friendlier model to live by.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Apr 15, 2016, 12:22PM
You said it. He's asking you what you think the flaw in the logic is. If you can't say, then your response has no weight.


I don't expect you to give it any weight, no matter what I say. I just speak the truth and let the sensible folks figure it out. LOL!



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Apr 15, 2016, 01:27PM
I don't expect you to give it any weight, no matter what I say. I just speak the truth and let the sensible folks figure it out. LOL!
Rather than having to "figure out" your position, can you explain it a bit and state what you think it flawed?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 15, 2016, 02:28PM
Rather than having to "figure out" your position, can you explain it a bit and state what you think it flawed?

That would be nice, and is necessary to engage in relevent discussion.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 16, 2016, 10:36AM
Weekend reading
http://www.stoneagebrain.com/
DRB


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 16, 2016, 11:45AM
Weekend reading
http://www.stoneagebrain.com/
DRB


Gotta put that on my library hold list!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Apr 16, 2016, 03:08PM
Weekend reading
http://www.stoneagebrain.com/

Thanks DRB!
 
It seems worth posting a bit more accessibly (I know a link is pretty accessible, but a post with the info at the link isn't too long, and it's much more present, which seems to be a major factor in how likely people are to actually check something out to see if it interests them (I'm inclined to conclude that people are getting more and more intellectually lazy because it sure seems that way--my perception tells me it's valid--but I suspect there's a lot more to it than that, and that what my perceptions and intuition tells me may not actually have anything to do with it).
 
Anyway, here's the info at that link--interesting stuff! Excellent video too.
 
Quote
About the book: Political Animals
 
Seattle Town Hall January 28, 2016 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=McnEbq61idU)
 
Why do so many millions of ordinary voters believe Barack Obama is a Muslim and that he was born in Kenya? Why do millions still believe WMD were found in Iraq after the war? Why did a majority believe that Saddam was behind 9-11 on the eve of the Iraq War? These are some of the important questions answered in bestselling historian Rick Shenkman's Political Animals: How Our Stone-Age Brain Gets in the Way of Smart Politics.
 
Eight years ago Shenkman raised these questions in Just How Stupid Are We? Facing the Truth About the American Voter, but few at the time were convinced our democracy was in trouble. Then Donald Trump came along.
 
No matter what happens in the end with Trump, he’s already proven one thing: Exploiting voters' fears works. His crowds are huge. The burning question of the moment is, then, how this could happen in an advanced democracy like ours. In his new book, Political Animals, Shenkman uses science to explain why so many people are susceptible to politicians’ manipulative appeals — and why they don’t seem to care when politicians are caught lying.
 
That so many millions of people succumb readily to the entreaties of wily politicians is a mystery given the extraordinary brain power of the ordinary human, which no computer can match. Or to put it another way: The human brain is packed with eighty-six billion neurons and this is the best we can do?
 
It’s this mystery that is at the heart of the book, which challenges the bromides of civics reformers who claim that our problem is a lack of information. Shenkman shows that the unsettling truth is that when we go with our gut instincts in politics, as we usually do, our gut fails us. Trump voters have been going with their gut. It’s failing them.
 
Shenkman shows what science says about these four common failings: The failure to engage in politics even when the stakes are high, the failure to correctly size up our leaders, the failure to reward politicians who tell us hard truths, and the failure to show empathy in circumstances that clearly cry out for it. Drawing on cutting-edge research in neuroscience, evolutionary psychology, and behavioral psychology, Shenkman says the explanation is that evolution has left us adrift in a modern world with a brain wired for the Stone Age. While in our personal lives ancient instincts often work to our advantage, in politics they usually don’t. Modern cues set off ancient instinctive responses that prompt us to behave in ways contrary to our own interests and good governance.
 
Example: Football games have affected the outcome of elections. So have shark attacks. So have even droughts. In a rational world this shouldn't happen, of course. But as Shenkman explains in Political Animals, our world is anything but rational. In the book he explores the hidden forces behind our often illogical choices.
 
Political Animals challenges us to go beyond the headlines, which often focus on what politicians do (or say they'll do), and to concentrate instead on what's really important: what shapes our response. Shenkman argues that, contrary to what we tell ourselves, it's our instincts rather than arguments appealing to reason that usually prevail. Pop culture tells us we can trust our instincts, but science is proving that when it comes to politics our Stone Age brain often malfunctions, misfires, and leads us astray.
 
Fortunately, we can learn to make our instincts work in our favor. Shenkman takes readers on a whirlwind tour of laboratories where scientists are exploring how sea slugs remember, chimpanzees practice deception, and patients whose brains have been split in two tell stories. The scientists' findings give us new ways of understanding our history and ourselves—and prove we don't have to be prisoners of our evolutionary past.
 
In this engaging, illuminating, and often riotous chronicle of our political culture, Shenkman probes the depths of the human mind to explore how we can become more political, and less animal.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 16, 2016, 07:12PM

Thanks DRB!
 

This was posted after Dusty's comment about not needing to explain his dismissive comment on  another's post. So my post had no explanation.

His comment that those of the right way of thinking would know what he meant reminds me of the Gnostics and their esoteric knowledge.

Eusebius' "Against Heresies" (Gnosticism) in which he substitutes the names of fruit for the names of Gnostic concepts, is one of the better intellectual smack downs in history. So the idea that some have special knowledge only known to their group and are therefore better than others was renounced as heresy 1700 years ago.

Ironically there are "Christian" groups who are tainted with the idea that they have a monopoly on right thinking and are better than other sorts of Christians. This seems contradictory to the line from the Jesus story "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone."

Then again, maybe my post was a bit of a booby trap. Some might dismiss it based on my comment but if it's just a link some might read it who otherwise would not.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Apr 17, 2016, 03:21PM
His comment that those of the right way of thinking would know what he meant reminds me of the Gnostics and their esoteric knowledge.

A rather a kind way to put it ...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Apr 18, 2016, 04:36PM
I don't expect you to give it any weight, no matter what I say. I just speak the truth and let the sensible folks figure it out. LOL!

He's not giving it any weight because you're not supporting it. Actual 'flawed logic' is pretty easy to identify and define. When people make that claim and then scamper when asked to support it, it's pretty plain that they're blowing smoke.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 18, 2016, 06:02PM
He's not giving it any weight because you're not supporting it. Actual 'flawed logic' is pretty easy to identify and define. When people make that claim and then scamper when asked to support it, it's pretty plain that they're blowing smoke.

And, if I'm not mistaken, smoke has negative weight.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 18, 2016, 06:38PM
Nope.  The particles in smoke have weight.  But they are small enough that the Stokes velocity is very small so they continue to waft about.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Apr 18, 2016, 06:54PM
And, if I'm not mistaken, smoke has negative weight.

Yeah--lighter than air--a profound rarity of substance if not it's absolute absence (obviously).
 
Random, formless "form" without substance.
 
A crystal clear point, well made.
 
An excellent simile as used ... pedantry aside of course.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 19, 2016, 08:56AM
Bruce

Well what about Brownian motion? If the particles have mass but move contrary to the force of gravity aren't they functionally weightless?
And what about mirrors, like in "smoke and mirrors." Does the impact of photons, reflected by these purported mirrors, effecting the smoke particles have more effect than gravity?

I saw a gravitational anomaly map of the Seattle area. Seattle is located over a region of low gravity. If gravity here is low does that mean we're all intellectual light weights here?

DRB
Seola Creek


Nope.  The particles in smoke have weight.  But they are small enough that the Stokes velocity is very small so they continue to waft about.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 19, 2016, 09:52AM
If I were to collect the smoke on a filter, the filter would have gained weight.  So smoke particles have weight.  Were they lighter than air the filter would appear to have lost weight.

Particles settling in a fluid will achieve a terminal velocity where the mass of the particle is balanced against the resistive force of the fluid.  This is the Stokes Settling Velocity.  Smoke particles actually are so light that the resistive forces can exceed the acceleration due to gravity.

We talk about smoke as having no form since it will change constantly based on the air currents.  Smokes and clouds are similar creatures, being comprised of very small particles and appearing to have no mass.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Apr 19, 2016, 10:35AM
If I were to collect the smoke on a filter ...

All excellent descriptions for the degree of substance the simile was used to represent in the discussion you guys seem to have entirely forgotten in favor of comparing physics geek ... parts.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 19, 2016, 12:07PM
As tangents go, that was both interesting and amusing though. Kind of how I meant the original statement.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Apr 19, 2016, 02:20PM
As tangents go, that was both interesting and amusing though. Kind of how I meant the original statement.

Fair enough.
 
We'd still do well to be a bit less self-indulgent and resist the urge to perform or compete over geekery and mind the subject or the point though. The habit has undermined a number of points made and whole even discussions in all sorts of topics. It may just be inaccurate perception, but it seems people are getting worse and worse at that kind of basic self-discipline and courtesy.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 22, 2016, 05:56AM
This week's effort

Budget Fail

April 15th is not just tax day. It is also the day  Congress is required to have passed a budget for the President’s signature.

 

We are 5/8 of the way through the 112th Congress, and it is well on its way to surpass it’s two GOP led predecessors as the least productive in the history of the institution. Notable about this is the fact the GOP has control of both Houses of Congress. Leaders in both Houses promised us we would see what GOP governance looked like. WOW, it is a truly ugly sight.

 

Speaker Paul Ryan noted, when drafted into the Speaker’s chair, “let’s be frank: The House is broken. We are not solving problems. We are adding to them.”, and promised to “return to regular order”. A significant marker that had occurred would have been seeing the House pass a budget by the deadline. Of course, the infighting amongst Republicans kept that from happening.

 

All things considered, that is probably a good thing for the American people and our economy. Ryan, and the quasi-sane portion of his caucus, are pushing to enact the appropriations called for in the bi-partisan budget deal signed last fall by Speaker Boehner and President Obama. The lunatic, TEA Party fringe of  the GOP is pushing to reinstate the disastrous sequestration programs of earlier agreements.

 

Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi, sums it up thusly; “"The Ryan budget that has been proposed is the most devastating road-to-ruin budget in history. And even that wasn't brutal enough for the radical forces that have taken control and dominate the House Republican caucus."

 

GOP budgets are, and always have been, a road map to disaster for the majority of the people they are supposed to serve and the government services they are obligated to provide. One need look no further than the heartland for evidentiary proof of this truism.

 

In 2010, Sam Brownback left the Senate and ran for the Governorship of Kansas. The wave that elected him also ushered in total GOP control of the Kansas legislature. They immediately passed the GOP “dream” agenda of across the board tax cuts with pie-in-the-sky promises of unlimited growth and prosperity.

 

The result has been an absolutely predictable disaster; a $400M hole in the Kansas budget and anemic economic and job growth. Republicans in Kansas are now throwing each other under the bus to deflect the blame.

 

We NEED Bernie’s revolution!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 22, 2016, 08:10AM
There's a certain stripe of Tea partyers who have no problem with destroying the federal government with debt and sorting out the mess later.

Radicals who want to bring down America no less than Al Kaida.*

It makes an interesting demonstration of the difference between a Marxist and a democratic socialist. The Marxist, believing that the ultimate outcome of the collapse of capitalism is a communist revolution, would be gladdened by the Tea party's obstructionism.
A social Democrat, who believes in the ability of the demoratic procccess to bring about change for the general good, is appalled by the obstruction of the democratic proccess.

DRB
Seola Creek.

*some history of anti- Federalist radicalism. Radicals of this background were the target of Nixon's "Southern Strategy" which broke poor white southerners away from the Democrats New Deal coalition.
http://dneiwert.blogspot.com/2016/04/confederate-heritage-month-red-shirts.html


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 29, 2016, 06:37AM
Next up.......

Troops to Syria

In Germany last week, President Obama announced the deployment of an additional 250 US Special Forces troops into the effort to roll back ISIS in Syria. This was coupled with another 200 troops added to the forces battling ISIS in Iraq.

 

I would like to believe this is in relation to negotiations he engaged in while in Saudi Arabia prior to his arrival in Germany, and that it is a precursor to  stepped up participation by Arab states. After all, in the end, they are the ones who MUST solve the issues in their regions.

 

The battle against ISIS IS being waged successfully. 40% of territory once controlled by ISIS in Iraq has been retaken, and the flow of foreign fighters into the ranks of the terrorist organization has been slowed from a flood to a trickle.

 

In Syria, forces loyal to the Assad regime, with Russian assistance, and Kurdish rebels aided by the US are on the verge of retaking the ISIS “capitol” in Raqqa. It is estimated that coalition airstrikes have decimated ISIS forces, killing more than 25,000 of the organizations combatants.

 

Success is also being experienced in the efforts to undermine the finances of the terrorist organization. Coalition efforts have disrupted ISIS oil production and cut off its access to financial institutions and cash reserves. One single airstrike struck an ISIS cash reserve vault, destroying millions of dollars of the groups ready cash.

 

Reports are that cuts to salaries and bonuses for their fighters are sowing discord and causing morale difficulties for the organization. There is infighting beginning amongst the leadership, a sign the efforts of the coalition are achieving successes.

 

All that said, not everything is rosy in the ongoing efforts. It is unlikely coalition backed Iraqi forces will be able to retake Mosul this year, and Fallujah, site of some of the heaviest fighting of the Iraq war, remains under ISIS control. Russian backed Regime forces are making great headway against rebel forces in areas of Syria not controlled by ISIS, strengthening the position of Bashar  Assad.

 

So, slow, but sure, progress is being made in the process of cleaning up the mess the ill-advised invasion of Iraq created. Despite the bombast spouting from the campaign of one Presidential candidate, American efforts there are not, “reckless, rudderless, and aimless”. Victory will not be achieved “very, very quickly”, as much as we might wish it so.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 29, 2016, 07:15AM
It's just too bad that we constantly hear about shelling or air strikes against MSF (Doctors without Borders) hospitals.  Seems that the forces are not being that discriminatory.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Apr 29, 2016, 12:55PM
Gee Russ you're making me feel old. Old enough to remember "advisors" going to Viet Nam.
Both situations with a civil war involving local factions, vestiges of post colonial structures and extra-national interventions.
It's nice to ask the Saudis for help and that ISIL's numbers are falling but the mess* at the core of the problem is not going away soon.
  • arbitrary States set up after WW1 to prevent strong States from forming a replacement of the Ottoman empire
    Control of oil resources by Western corporations
    The arbitrary establishment of a Jewish state and not the also promised Arab/Palestinian state.
This mess is in a great part, of our making but the aggieved parties won't accept an outside solution. They need to make their own.
Our best policy would be a national policy of petroleum independence and the avoidance of foreign entanglements.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 29, 2016, 02:04PM
Gee Russ you're making me feel old. Old enough to remember "advisors" going to Viet Nam.
Both situations with a civil war involving local factions, vestiges of post colonial structures and extra-national interventions.
It's nice to ask the Saudis for help and that ISIL's numbers are falling but the mess* at the core of the problem is not going away soon.
  • arbitrary States set up after WW1 to prevent strong States from forming a replacement of the Ottoman empire
    Control of oil resources by Western corporations
    The arbitrary establishment of a Jewish state and not the also promised Arab/Palestinian state.
This mess is in a great part, of our making but the aggieved parties won't accept an outside solution. They need to make their own.
Our best policy would be a national policy of petroleum independence and the avoidance of foreign entanglements.

Couldn't say it better myself.


DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on May 02, 2016, 12:45AM
If I were to collect the smoke on a filter, the filter would have gained weight.  So smoke particles have weight.  Were they lighter than

Doesn't smoke contain gases as well as particles? If so, isn't considering only the particles a bit of card-stacking?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 05, 2016, 06:54PM
And again....

Solar

This Presidential primary season has pitted the political establishment against a populist uprising. In Florida, this conflict is occurring in the energy arena. It pits the interests of the average Floridian wanting access to cheap and renewable electricity against the entrenched interests of the corporate monopolies that control both utility access to electricity and the government that writes the legislation that regulates them.

In the recent past, two groups have been competing to advance ballot initiatives to amend the State Constitution to concretize their positions. It should come as little surprise that the Amendment advanced by the moneyed, corporate interests is the one that will be on the ballot.

It’s truly illuminating that an initiative that would allow small businesses to lease solar equipment to homeowners, selling them the electricity at a rate that would both reduce their power bills AND pay off the price of the equipment, and sell their excess electricity to their neighbors is staunchly opposed by the utility owned GOP (supposedly small business friendly) run legislature in this state. A movement for that amendment initiative failed due to lack of financial support and the ability to generate the nearly ¾ of a million signatures required to get it on the ballot.

Instead, Florida voters will get to vote for or, more rationally, against and amendment, bought and paid for by corporate utilities and big oil, that will make their monopolies a permanent fixture in the Florida Constitution. This initiative will be listed as Amendment 1 on the Florida ballot, and will be deceptively described to “grant Florida residents the right to own or lease equipment that produces solar energy for personal use”. It fails to mention they will ONLY be allowed to buy or lease that equipment from the utility monopolies in the state.

A minor victory for Florida homeowners is the opportunity to vote FOR Amendment 4 during the primary election on Aug. 30. It, if passed, will provide property tax exemptions for renewable energy devices. “One small step….”

Elon Musk, founder and CEO of Tesla Motors and Space X, which recently landed a space launch vehicle on a barge in the ocean, is a big fan of solar. He claims that covering .6% of the area of the continental US would supply 100% of our electric needs. He calls for a Kennedy Moon shot commitment to do it. This should be a no brainer.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on May 05, 2016, 07:29PM
You may notice that the two major candidates are falling over each other to show that they support the coal industry when they are in the Appalachian states.

Note that Global Climate Change really requires we reduce use of coal fired power plants, but the Carbon industries are all having problems because of the oil glut and all that Frack gas. 

And the utilities in all states seem to be getting a bit upset about these solar homes with sell-back options.  In fact, in Massachusetts the utilities managed to force the solar users to buy at retail but sell back at wholesale rates.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 13, 2016, 05:51AM
Pretzel Twisting

Politics and integrity are, to a large degree, mutually exclusive concepts, especially during campaigns. There are exceptions, Bernie Sanders and Paul Ryan come to mind, but this years GOP primary campaign may set the all time bar for that exclusivity.

Here are a few of the thousands of comments GOP contenders made about presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump during the primary process. It is hardly a comprehensive or selective collection.

Lindsey Graham - "He's a race-baiting, xenophobic, religious bigot. He doesn't represent my party. He doesn't represent the values that the men and women who wear the uniform are fighting for. ... He's the ISIL man of the year."

Ted Cruz - "Utterly amoral." "This man is a pathological liar. He doesn't know the difference between truth and lies. He lies practically every word that comes out of his mouth

Marco Rubio - "We’re on the verge of having someone take over the conservative movement who is a con artist."

Chris Christie - "Showtime is over. We are not electing an entertainer-in-chief. Showmanship is fun, but it is not the kind of leadership that will truly change America.


Rick Perry – “He offers a barking carnival act that can be best described as Trumpism: a toxic mix of demagoguery, mean-spiritedness and nonsense that will lead the Republican Party to perdition if pursued.”
“Let no one be mistaken – Donald Trump’s candidacy is a cancer on conservatism, and it must be clearly diagnosed, excised and discarded.”

Bobby jindal – “He’s a narcissist. He’s an egomaniac. The only thing he believes in is himself…… “Like all narcissists, Donald Trump is insecure and weak. … We know that only a very weak and small person needs to constantly tell us how strong and powerful they are.”

Rand Paul - "Donald Trump takes us in the wrong direction. He would be a disaster. We’ll be slaughtered in a landslide. “
“I think, sometimes, narcissists have delusions. And I think he’s almost to the point of being delusional about his own power.”

It is hard to reconcile these statements with the fact that, with the exception of Graham and, so far, Cruz, ALL of these former opponents are now backing Trump as the nominee of their party.

They believe “The Donald” to be a “race-baiting, xenophobic bigot”, “pathological liar”, “con-man”, “carnival barker”, “cancer”, and “narcissistic egomaniac”. But, hey, he’ll make a GREAT President.

Unbelievably, world-class, pretzel-twisting hypocrisy.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on May 13, 2016, 07:34AM
I think Jindal nailed it.  He's most definitely a narcissist egomaniac.  Every thing he does and says support that.

The Party is just doing what it must after the big rift between the Pols and the Republican voters.

Let's see if the Democrats can do similar pretzel bending once the nominee has been officially named (and it will be Hillary).


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on May 14, 2016, 06:48AM

Let's see if the Democrats can do similar pretzel bending once the nominee has been officially named (and it will be Hillary).

I don't think it is possible for a human being to pretzel bend more so, than they have doing supporting Obama for the past 8 years.  :D


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on May 14, 2016, 08:38AM
I don't think it is possible for a human being to pretzel bend more so, than they have doing supporting Obama for the past 8 years.  :D

Sure, but for most people "pretzel bending" doesn't just mean "I don't like it" or "it doesn't affirm my thoroughly uncritical personal views".
 
Well ... that's not true, it just doesn't mean that to such an incredibly extreme degree for most.
 
At any rate, apples and orangutans ... as always.
 
 
-smiley-


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on May 14, 2016, 10:04AM
I don't think it is possible for a human being to pretzel bend more so, than they have doing supporting Obama for the past 8 years.  :D

Just because you  don't like him doesn't mean the Democrats don't like him either.  He's a Moderate Democrat.  If you could get to know him, you might actually like him.  He's more Conservative than you think.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on May 14, 2016, 07:13PM
Just because you  don't like him doesn't mean the Democrats don't like him either.  He's a Moderate Democrat.  If you could get to know him, you might actually like him.  He's more Conservative than you think.
"Moderate Democrat" Obama's policies put him somewhere between N. Rockefeller and R Nixon. With liberals and moderates driven out of the GOP the moderates have become "Democrats" (maybe the should be called 'DINO's "Democrats in name only". But on second look that would violate the party's inclusive principle.)
Moderate Democrats, on the spectrum of Humphrey have been knee-capped by GOP selfish negativism.
DRB.
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 19, 2016, 08:25PM
THis week's effort:

Trump Wins?

This election season isn’t really going to be a contest between Republicans and Democrats. More than superficially, anyway.  Neither party can claim more than 30% of the electorate. It is the 40% plurality of “no-party-affiliation” independents who will make this choice.

And, it’s not really going to be contested on right/ left or Conservative/ Liberal axes either.

No, this election is going to be fought between the Establishment and the Populous. It is what we saw in the primaries. On both sides the People rose up and made clear their dissatisfaction with the status quo. Successfully on the GOP side, where they have had 6 years of TEA Party  practice. Almost, but not quite, (apparently) on the Democrat side.

Unfortunately, the populist candidate who won is a shallow, misogynistic bully whose only familiarity with the White House should be under the auspices of a visitor pass. It is unfortunate because, he COULD actually win. And, it’s not that far fetched.

Trump has got the angry, old, white vote wrapped up. Their party pulled the wool over their eyes for 35 years, and they’re fed up, even though they do not realize Trump is not their answer. But, that angry, old, white vote is not enough to win a national election anymore.

On the other side, it appears the Establishment candidate has won. In this election, that may be the kiss of death. The establishment wing of the Democrat Party has sold out huge portions of its constituencies to corporations and big money just as surely as has the GOP. The populist wing of the Democrats is just as fed up with the Dems as the angry, old, white voters are with the GOP.

But, and this is a biggie: the largest bulk of the 40% of the electorate who are independents are under 40. It is they who will decide this election. They are NOT big fans of the status quo, and, it is they who have powered the Bernie Sanders surge.

Millenials just became the largest generation. They see, and are the victims of, how badly we baby boomers have screwed things up. Many of them are going to vote against the corporate friendly, war mongering establishment, no matter they have to vote for a demagogue.

A Trump win would be a sad day for America, but it is not as unlikely as I would wish it to be.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on May 20, 2016, 04:57AM
We're back into the same error:

"Populous" means there are a lot of people somewhere.

"Populace" refers to the people.

What about the Libertarians?  Do you think they could have some traction this time?  Especially with Bill Weld as Veep?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: jakeway1 on May 20, 2016, 05:45AM
The Republican-base voters whom libertarians hoped to convert put down Milton Friedman when thousands of undocumented minors poured through America’s southern border. They turned off John Stossel when Muslims took over whole European neighborhoods. When Islamic terrorists shot up Paris and bombed Belgium, it was “bye-bye” individualism and “hello!” collective security.

Trump won the GOP primary contest by proposing to ban Muslim immigration, “bomb the ****” out of ISIS, and build an actual wall along the Mexican border. Libertarians decry all these measures as authoritarian, racist, and fascistic. They don’t seem to realize that nobody is listening to them.

 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 20, 2016, 05:55AM
My bad on the spelling. THanks for the correction. Be interesting to see if my editor catches it.

I've heard Liberterians described as domesticated house cats. Absolutely convinced of their own independence and self-reliance when they are really 100% dependent on the household in which they are included.

Milton Friedman is a proponent, if not the inventor, of a school of economics that has been, multiple times, disproven in the real world. I have heard "supply-side, trickle-down" described as "Zombie" economics because no matter how many times the real world kills it, the GOP brings it back to life.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on May 20, 2016, 06:07AM
They don’t seem to realize that nobody is listening to them.

Or maybe it's just that they recognize these things as authoritarian, racist, and fascistic. Are you suggesting they should ignore party principles and only officially stand for what they think would be more popular?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on May 20, 2016, 09:20AM
President Trump?
I hope not but it is possible.
Depending on the youth vote is chancy.

When HRC said that Bill's impeachment was driven by a "Vast right wing media conspiracy" she was only half joking.
Our young voters have grown up in the "Hate Hillary" era. So their voting will hinge on being able to see common sense from nonsense.
(The current investigation of her E-mail won't help. Most of that seems to be due to her being caught out by E-security standards changing so rapidly that her system was out of date before it went into service. I don't see any volition on her part to decide anyone. She probably hired it out asking that it meet State standards and she didn't want to see her emails in the Nat'l Enquirer.)

Trump will love running against her as the right wing has 30 years of muck ready to throw at her.

Even the women's vote is not secure as Trump has support there from women on the right. (Ironic, in that she has been a paradigm of "stand by your man" "no divorce" traditional values in comparison to Trump's divorces and "trophy wives".)

As I see it she must:
convince the youth to not be "all or nothing for Bernie" and overcome their saturation in right-wing propaganda;
convince a large majority of women to vote for her (or get men to see that overturning Roe v Wade would also overturn the right to privacy and the consequences for them of that loss in this "information age")
and convince a plurality of men that she is not a threat to them. (A barber shop I no longer go to had A poster in their office of HRC Photoshoped into a dominatrix outfit. A very real representation of male fear of a powerful woman and how close misogyny is to the surfaces in our culture.)

Right now it's about 50/50 that she can pull it off.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: jakeway1 on May 20, 2016, 09:36AM
Quote
Are you suggesting they should ignore party principles and only officially stand for what they think would be more popular?

No....I'm suggesting no one is listening to them.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on May 20, 2016, 11:10AM
No....I'm suggesting no one is listening to them.

 ... and that they apparently don't realize it or they'd act differently.
 
I think it's pretty clear I was asking about the latter half of the equation, not the half you chose to address instead.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on May 20, 2016, 01:56PM

As I see it she must:
convince the youth to not be "all or nothing for Bernie" and overcome their saturation in right-wing propaganda;
convince a large majority of women to vote for her (or get men to see that overturning Roe v Wade would also overturn the right to privacy and the consequences for them of that loss in this "information age")
and convince a plurality of men that she is not a threat to them. (A barber shop I no longer go to had A poster in their office of HRC Photoshoped into a dominatrix outfit. A very real representation of male fear of a powerful woman and how close misogyny is to the surfaces in our culture.)

Right now it's about 50/50 that she can pull it off.

DRB
Seola Creek
I doubt that's the big thing really. Hillary reminds me of Kerry - a solid but otherwise unremarkable candidate.

And a lot of this election is about pushing for something. Some change. Some (to quote bernia) "revolution".

On the right, they've pushed Trump as a sign of change. They want someone who talks without filter, who boasts and brags and ridicules as he openly feels, who is still successful and (supposedly) gets things done.

On the left, Bernie has shown incredible strength as an underdog. Mostly because he is after a revolution to return power and money to the people. And he is completely sincere. He didn't change his message for the times. The times changed to fit his message. Go back 30 years, and you can hear an almost identical speech.

And then there's status quo Hillary. A figure who is already incredibly polarized by the right, comes off skivvy to the left, and wants to move in small steps even though we all know she will be blocked at every turn as much or more than Obama. It sounds like political stalemate... and with lack of any major goal to put the little capital she has towards.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on May 20, 2016, 04:42PM
Bob
I think we're talking about two sides to the same coin.
What I hear you saying is HRC is a weak candidate for these times when "change" is the slogan d'jour.
What I was saying is she is a weak candidate in that she has 30 years of right-wing hate and the FBI investigation as political baggage. She has a split with the left-wing base of her party she must geal and she faces an uphill climb against the underlying misogyny in our culture.
I don't see our positions as opposed but cumulative burdens on her campaign.

I find it ironic the family values crowd gives her no respect for sticking with Bill and "making their marriage work".

Out of Bill's shadow I think she could be a better president.

Bernie might have some pull at the convention buy I don't see that putting an end to the permanent state of war or kow-tow-ing to capital. I think he will stay in the Senate to keep his independent voice with not much more effect.

[A late political realization. The simplest description of capitalism is that it is composed of two elements, labor and capital. My realization is that they are not polarized elements, good and bad but both are needed in balance, for the system to work. The role of government, "liberty and justice for all", is to see that the interests of both are represented. This balance is what Bernie's campaign was about.

Our culture currently has made the interests of "capital" an unquestioned dogma. Whereas "labor" is romanticised in TV ads (vis Chevy trucks) but our reality is the Made in China label of goods on the shelf.]

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 20, 2016, 07:46PM

[A late political realization. The simplest description of capitalism is that it is composed of two elements, labor and capital. My realization is that they are not polarized elements, good and bad but both are needed in balance, for the system to work. The role of government, "liberty and justice for all", is to see that the interests of both are represented. This balance is what Bernie's campaign was about.

Our culture currently has made the interests of "capital" an unquestioned dogma. Whereas "labor" is romanticised in TV ads (vis Chevy trucks) but our reality is the Made in China label of goods on the shelf.]

DRB
Seola Creek

Um.........DUH!!........ Of course, I say that as a life long union member who has long proclaimed the need to restore the balance between the two we had in the post war years. It is an important apsect of fixing this country.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: jakeway1 on May 20, 2016, 08:26PM
I'm suggesting they're not abandoning party principles.....and no one is listening to them. No one will listen even if they abandon party principles.

Friedrich Hayek’s books aren’t flying off the shelf. Rand Paul’s sclerotic presidential campaign isn’t months away from downing Hillary Clinton. Libertarianism as a philosophy is still relegated to all-male conferences and basement-dweller Facebook pages.

Reason magazine, the libertine crack rag, just can’t let the libertarian moment go. Headline after headline is tagged with “libertarian moment,” inserting freedom where it doesn’t belong. Cam Newton’s “dab” dance? Libertarian moment.http://reason.com/blog/2016/02/06/cam-newton-and-the-libertarian-moment. Beyoncé’s new hate whitey album? Libertarian moment. http://reason.com/blog/2016/04/29/did-jay-z-cheat-on-beyonc-or-do-the-two. Millennials confused about our two-party system? Libertarian moment.http://reason.com/blog/2015/05/22/the-libertarian-moment-is-everywhere-aro

Nick Gillespie could step on a pile of dog **** and abstract an impending Gary Johnson administration from it.

 

 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on May 20, 2016, 09:42PM
Um.........DUH!!........ Of course, I say that as a life long union member who has long proclaimed the need to restore the balance between the two we had in the post war years. It is an important apsect of fixing this country.
Hey cut me some slack here. Growing up with cold war hagiography of capitalism and living through Reaganomics etc that connection is hardly clear in popular culture.
Duff

A post script. George Zimmerman has sold the gun he used to kill Trayvon Martin for $250,000. He says he will use the proceeds to counteract Black Lives Matter attacks on the police and HRC's anti-gun proposals.
It's his kling-on effect that brings this kind of support to Trump. He accepts the associations with a lazy it's a free country rationale, I don't agree with all their positions but if they want to support me "it's a free country." On the surface what he says sounds reasonable but it ignores the quid-pro-quo expectations of contemporary politics. I
He has the GOP acquiessing to his victory. He's bringing in all of the lunatic fringe and Hate Hillary misogynists pretty soon by he's pieced together his election.
DRB


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 21, 2016, 04:47AM
Hey cut me some slack here. Growing up with cold war hagiography of capitalism and living through Reaganomics etc that connection is hardly clear in popular culture.
Duff

Ain't it the truth. Hence, this on-going column.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on May 23, 2016, 02:28PM
Bob
I think we're talking about two sides to the same coin.
What I hear you saying is HRC is a weak candidate for these times when "change" is the slogan d'jour.
What I was saying is she is a weak candidate in that she has 30 years of right-wing hate and the FBI investigation as political baggage. She has a split with the left-wing base of her party she must geal and she faces an uphill climb against the underlying misogyny in our culture.
I don't see our positions as opposed but cumulative burdens on her campaign.
Pretty much.

But to your point though, I have to wonder if Clinton would be known if not for the right-wing hate against her? Very similar to Kerry again... He had been around, but never had any great significant defining points that really defined him. And so he became the not bush candidate. What defines Hillary? A term and a half in the senate with most of her votes going he popular direction, a term as secretary of state with a few glitches and few gains but nothing remarkable, and what?

And then I have to admit, this person really has a point: The Clintons have spent most of their professional lives in government, and their net worth is now 110 million? And I get that people like to pay former presidents to come speak, but it isn't just Bill they're paying exorbitant fees to. Nor are these college commencements or such, but active campaign donors.
https://medium.com/soapbox-dc/why-trump-will-likely-win-the-presidential-election-3959ffa8e06d#.nlnze8lsl

If not extremely sketchy activity, it does also show a total disconnect from the average person or average plight.

Even if not hate, it's hard to look at Clinton's records with much more than "meh" on a status quo type of year. There just isn't much to love either. Just a whole lotta working the hell out of the political system for personal gain. Maybe it's better than Trump, but "Better than __________ " is a weak argument that failed Romney and then Kerry before him.


The other side of it, is if you wanted to GOP primary race... many of the more reasonable candidates were simply overshadowed by Trump's antics. Jeb for instance. He had the name, the money, and the anticipation of taking it home... but compared to Trump, he was a ghost of a figure. I get the bad feeling that the same very well may happen to Clinton. She just doesn't have enough energy or passion.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on May 24, 2016, 04:56AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/opinion/why-is-clinton-disliked.html
Quote
I understand why Donald Trump is so unpopular. He earned it the old-fashioned way, by being obnoxious, insulting and offensive. But why is Hillary Clinton so unpopular?

She is, at the moment, just as unpopular as Trump. In the last three major national polls she had unfavorability ratings in the same ballpark as Trump’s. In the Washington Post/ABC News poll, they are both at 57 percent disapproval.

In the New York Times/CBS News poll, 60 percent of respondents said Clinton does not share their values. Sixty-four percent said she is not honest or trustworthy. Clinton has plummeted so completely down to Trump’s level that she is now statistically tied with him in some of the presidential horse race polls.

There are two paradoxes to her unpopularity. First, she was popular not long ago. As secretary of state she had a 66 percent approval rating. Even as recently as March 2015 her approval rating was at 50 and her disapproval rating was at 39.

It’s only since she launched a multimillion-dollar campaign to impress the American people that she has made herself so strongly disliked.


The second paradox is that, agree with her or not, she’s dedicated herself to public service. From advocate for children to senator, she has pursued her vocation tirelessly. It’s not the “what” that explains her unpopularity, it’s the “how” — the manner in which she has done it.

But what exactly do so many have against her?

I would begin my explanation with this question: Can you tell me what Hillary Clinton does for fun? We know what Obama does for fun — golf, basketball, etc. We know, unfortunately, what Trump does for fun.

But when people talk about Clinton, they tend to talk of her exclusively in professional terms. For example, on Nov. 16, 2015, Peter D. Hart conducted a focus group on Clinton. Nearly every assessment had to do with on-the-job performance. She was “multitask-oriented” or “organized” or “deceptive.”

Clinton’s career appears, from the outside, to be all consuming. Her husband is her co-politician. Her daughter works at the Clinton Foundation. Her friendships appear to have been formed at networking gatherings reserved for the extremely successful.

People who work closely with her adore her and say she is warm and caring. But it’s hard from the outside to think of any non-career or pre-career aspect to her life. Except for a few grandma references, she presents herself as a résumé and policy brief.

For example, her campaign recently released a biographical video called “Fighter.” It’s filled with charming and quirky old photos of her fighting for various causes. But then when the video cuts to a current interview with Clinton herself, the lighting is perfect, the setting is perfect, her costume is perfect. She looks less like a human being and more like an avatar from some corporate brand.

Clinton’s unpopularity is akin to the unpopularity of a workaholic. Workaholism is a form of emotional self-estrangement. Workaholics are so consumed by their professional activities that their feelings don’t inform their most fundamental decisions. The professional role comes to dominate the personality and encroaches on the normal intimacies of the soul. As Martyn Lloyd-Jones once put it, whole cemeteries could be filled with the sad tombstone: “Born a man, died a doctor.”

At least in her public persona, Clinton gives off an exclusively professional vibe: industrious, calculated, goal-oriented, distrustful. It’s hard from the outside to have a sense of her as a person; she is a role.

This formal, career-oriented persona puts her in direct contrast with the mores of the social media age, which is intimate, personalist, revealing, trusting and vulnerable. It puts her in conflict with most people’s lived experience. Most Americans feel more vivid and alive outside the work experience than within. So of course to many she seems Machiavellian, crafty, power-oriented, untrustworthy.

There’s a larger lesson here, especially for people who have found a career and vocation that feels fulfilling. Even a socially good vocation can swallow you up and make you lose a sense of your own voice. Maybe it’s doubly important that people with fulfilling vocations develop, and be seen to develop, sanctuaries outside them: in play, solitude, family, faith, hobbies and leisure.

Abraham Joshua Heschel wrote that the Sabbath is “a palace in time which we build.” It’s not a day of rest before work; you work in order to experience this day of elevation. Josef Pieper wrote that leisure is not an activity, it’s an attitude of mind. It’s stepping outside strenuous effort and creating enough stillness so that it becomes possible to contemplate and enjoy things as they are.

Even successful lives need these sanctuaries — in order to be a real person instead of just a productive one. It appears that we don’t really trust candidates who do not show us theirs.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 24, 2016, 05:02AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/opinion/why-is-clinton-disliked.html

NIce! And, dead, spot on.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on May 24, 2016, 07:01PM
following in that trend, we have:

Quote
“No one’s really been able to do a good job with the campaign to show people that real side of her, and unfortunately the public perception of her is extremely different,” he added. “It’s not a matter of reinventing her. It’s a matter of showing people who she is. If you show the real Hillary you would do a lot of good for her."
http://www.politico.com/story/2016/05/clinton-allies-dig-in-for-scorched-earth-ad-campaign-223542

Hasn't that been a problem for her? During the 2008 run... as an attempt to counter GOP attacks the past few years... Shoot, throughout this primary season... Never seen anyone else struggle so much to "reveal themselves", especially one so skilled in crafting her public image.

What is this "real Hillary" we're supposed to see that is so difficult for her to show for some reason? And why after 25 years on the national stage has she supposedly been unable to show it?

I call BS. We're in for a season of stupid antics from the right and incredibly negative ad bombardment from the left.

*sigh* I know it's probably a horribly long shot, but I really do hope Sanders can pull off the impossible. He really seems the much better candidate in a number of ways.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 27, 2016, 05:24AM
And, onward.......

1956
If one were interested in seeing how far to the right this country has drifted in my lifetime, a review of the 1956 GOP Party platform would provide a pretty clear picture. The Eisenhower Republicans were significantly to left of today’s neo-liberal, Clinton Democrats. And, they were light years from the self absorbed, corporate war machine that is today’s GOP.

 

The GOP platform of 1956 included planks that supported:

Protecting and expanding Social Security, not cutting benefits and raising the retirement age.

 

Making it easier for workers to join a union and strengthening collective bargaining rights, rather than passing “Right to Work (for less)” laws and placing obstacles in the collective bargaining process.

 

Providing asylum and shelter for refugees, not building walls and banning entry into the country for an entire religion.

 

Raising the minimum wage, not doing away with it.

 

Expand, not shorten and diminish, the Unemployment Insurance program to reach more people and provide a safety net when jobs are lost.

 

Recognize the role of the Federal Government in shoring up and rebuilding low-income communities.

 

Assuring equal pay for equal work regardless of sex.

 

There are many other planks, but, you should get the idea. We were, then, the “kinder, gentler” nation GHW Bush reminisced about at the end of the Reagan years.

 

I put it on us self-absorbed baby-boomers. The folks who were the majority of voters in 1956 were realists. They had lived through the depression caused by GOP policies in the early part of the century, and fought the war that resulted from and ended it. They understood the necessity of working together for the common good, whether in the military fighting a fascist enemy, or in a union fighting the greed and power of moneyed interests.

 

They could not be swayed by pie-in-the-sky, rose-colored glasses political promises of prosperity if we just got the government out of the way. They had lived through it

 

We “Boomers” hadn't. When we became the voting majority and the moneyed interests gave us the pie-in-the-sky Reagan, we swallowed it, hook, line, and sinker. We turned this country from a “tax and spend” juggernaut, the world’s greatest creditor nation, into the “borrow and spend”, debtor nation we are today.

 

Like our Parents and Grandparents before them, our offspring see through this. They reject the “Establishment” we allowed to take over this country. They have given us Bernie. Wish we were smart enough to take him.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 03, 2016, 06:14AM
This week's column:

REDD+
It would be difficult to choose which outlandish statement made by presumptive GOP nominee Donald Trump makes the least sense, but his promise to tear up the Paris Climate Agreement certainly ranks near the top. While Most of the objections to the agreement stem from the lobbying efforts of the fossil-fuels industries, there is much more to it than the production of green-house gases.

 

While the geometric progression of carbon loading into the atmosphere as a result of industrial and agricultural by-products is huge, its impact might not have been so drastic were it not for the fact we have simultaneously removed almost 50% of the old growth, primary forests around the world. Were this not the case, we might be looking at a near net neutral for the impact of all human carbon producing activities

 

The Paris agreement, a first for a multi-national protocol, includes sections addressing the preservation of rain and boreal forests, the most efficient carbon absorption sinks in existence. A key component of this section of the pact is a movement called “Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation”, shortened to REDD+.

 

REDD+ is, in the ecological movement, a relatively new concept developed by the Coalition of Rain Forest Nations about a decade ago. It is a market based model incorporating trade-offs and credits similar to those so vehemently opposed by the fossil-fuel industries in their fight against sane environmental policy.

 

As with any nascent technology, real world results of REDD+ efforts have been mixed. Finding what works is largely a trial and error endeavor, but the inclusion of an entire chapter dedicated to those efforts guarantees a continued winnowing and improvement.

 

A primary obstacle to the implementation of REDD+ programs is financing. At the UN Warsaw COP (Convention of Parties) 19 – Framework Convention on Climate Change meeting in preparation for Paris, a 7 section protocol for funding REDD+ was adopted.

 

Together, these protocols constitute a large step forward in recognizing the neglected little sister of the environmental movement. Finding natural, sustainable methods of removing carbon from the atmosphere is every bit as critical as finding alternatives to putting more of it into the air we have to breathe.

 

Having Trump, and his supporters, saying he will “tear up” the first true global agreement to deal with mankind’s most pressing issue shows the immaturity of a large segment of our population. I wish we’d grow up!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 10, 2016, 05:59AM
Appears some of you are reading these, even if you're not commenting, so........

Racist Judge?
The cognitive dissonance and hypocrisy emanating from the GOP is a common thread in this column. The latest batch, centered around comments made by presumptive Presidential candidate, Donald Trump, may be the most amazing yet.

Trump insists a federal judge, born in Indiana to immigrant parents, presiding over a civil fraud lawsuit cannot adjudicate fairly because of his ethnicity. It has produced a firestorm of reaction from all corners of our polity, most notably from the party he purports to lead.

Speaker Paul Ryan blasted the comments, “Claiming a person can't do their job because of their race is sort of like the textbook definition of a racist comment.” Sen. Susan Collins of Maine added the comments were “absolutely unacceptable” and “demonstrate both a lack of respect for the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers.”

Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell said. “I think he'd have a much better chance of winning if he would quit making so many unfortunate public utterances and stick to the script.” Outrage over the comments permeates the GOP from top to bottom.

This outrage is issuing from the same group that is refusing to consider President Obama’s imminently qualified nominee to the SCOTUS because they believe the seat should be held open so Mr. Trump, who their own members believe “demonstrates both a lack of respect for the judicial system and the principle of separation of powers”, can make the selection after he is elected (fat chance). One can only shake one’s head in baffled amazement at the cognitive dissonance of that stance.

Needless to say, Democrats are taking full advantage of the dust up. Chief Trump attack dog, Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Mass., called Trump, “Exactly the kind of candidate you’d expect from a Republican Party whose ‘script’ for years has been to execute a full-scale assault on the integrity of our courts.”

And, “Paul Ryan condemned Trump’s campaign for its attacks on Judge Curiel’s integrity. Great. Where’s Paul Ryan’s condemnation of the blockade, the intimidation, the smears and the slime against the integrity of qualified judicial nominees and Judge Garland?”

The GOP’s politicization of President Obama’s SCOTUS nominee was an ill conceived, losing proposition from the start. It is now obvious Donald Trump has little respect, and significant disdain, for the Judicial System of our country. Sticking with that ill conceived, losing proposition may completely undo the GOP in November.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 10, 2016, 09:54AM
I don't think you have to froth at the mouth so much.

If Trump loses the election Judge Garland will be in the Supreme Court before the week is out.

The Republicans are more afraid Clinton will nominate somebody more Liberal.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 10, 2016, 11:59AM
I don't think you have to froth at the mouth so much.

If Trump loses the election Judge Garland will be in the Supreme Court before the week is out.

The Republicans are more afraid Clinton will nominate somebody more Liberal.

Actually, I would prefer someone more liberal, but the actions of the GOP Senate are inexcusable.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 10, 2016, 12:01PM
Totally agree with you there.

He deserves a hearing and an up or down vote.

At least Bork got a hearing and a vote (down).


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 16, 2016, 06:39PM
Another week.......

Ali's Funeral

Last Friday, America was treated to a demonstration of the love and beauty that is the TRUTH of Islam. The occasion was the funeral of Muhammad Ali, a true, larger-than-life, American hero.

Thousands packed the arena chosen for the service to hear eulogies and tributes from friends, family, admirers, and religious leaders of many faiths. Speakers as diverse as President Bill Clinton, Ali’s wife, Lonnie, Rabbi Michael Lerner, Comedian Billy Crystal, and Attallah Shabazz, daughter of Malcolm X, shared stories and messages of love and inclusion.

Lonnie Ali shared a story of a 12 year old Cassius Clay and the white Louisville Police Officer who got him into boxing after Clay’s bike was stolen. "America must never forget when a cop and an inner city [kid] talk to each other, then miracles can happen.”

One does not normally think of a memorial service as an event to inspire standing ovations, but there were several during this one. Four of them were for Rabbi Lerner, the biggest coming when he mentioned the next President of the United States using the pronoun “she”.

Some, not in attendance, took umbrage at the inclusion of political material in the proceedings, but no true memorial of Ali could avoid that. While his fame was won in the boxing ring, his stature as a larger than life hero was earned through his civil rights activism and dedication to standing for the world’s oppressed.

Perhaps the most relevant and moving words of the day came from Attallah Shabazz, who read poetry, and described the friendship between her father  and Cassius Clay/ Muhammad Ali. She recited the names of Ali’s nine children, characterizing her relationship with the champ as a “treasure” because of his relationship with her father.

She closed with, “Religions have different names, and yet they all contain truth. Truth expressed in different ways and forms and times. It doesn't matter whether you're a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew. When you believe in God, you should believe all people are part of one family.”

The very next day the hate that is so rampant in this world expressed itself here in our area. A sexually repressed madman with a semi-automatic rifle slaughtered 49 people in an Orlando gay bar. That’s for a later column. Today I think we need to be reminded that true Islam IS a religion of beauty and love. RIP Muhammad Ali.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jun 20, 2016, 06:40PM
here's a scary one to wake up over...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/supreme-court-says-police-may-use-evidence-found-after-illegal-stops.html


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jun 21, 2016, 10:15AM
here's a scary one to wake up over...
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/us/supreme-court-says-police-may-use-evidence-found-after-illegal-stops.html

Specifically the language that even though the search was illegal the court saw saw no flagrantly illegal activity. Summat like saying "Yes she was pregnant but not flagrantly so."

This leaves the cops to decide "How much is too illegal? What can I get away with?"

DRB


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 21, 2016, 10:28AM
I am wondering what more there is to this one. It seems a blatant rejection of 4th Amendment protections.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jun 21, 2016, 05:07PM
Yup. I'm pretty much at a loss here. That opinion reads like trump wrote it...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 24, 2016, 05:25AM
This week's effort from the "Bilge Meister"......

Waking Up?

Social media on the internet has been a major catalyst for social change in this country. For example, just 8 years ago gays could not serve openly in the military and a majority of Americans believed that marriage was an institution reserved solely for a man and a woman.

In just those short 8 years exposure to differing views through social media have changed opinions, followed by changes in laws, on these issues significantly. Today we have an openly gay man serving as the Secretary of the Army, and same-sex marriage is the law of the land, supported by a large majority of Americans.

Are we beginning to see the same kind of movement to change the Wild West, shoot-em-up gun culture in this country? One can only hope. There are indications that resistance to the iron grip the NRA holds on our Congress is beginning to show signs of life.

In the wake, literally, of the atrocity in Orlando outrage has finally spurred some members of Congress to take a stand. They are demanding, at the very least, votes on some miniscule, common sense reforms supported by more than 90% of Americans, gun-owners and NRA members included. Of course, the NRA is in full dudgeon in opposition. Will their stranglehold prevail?

It did in the first instance, when a 15 hour filibuster by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn) forced Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ken) to bring four gun control, two-Dem, two GOP, amendments to the floor of the Senate for votes. The amendments were differing party line versions of a “No-Fly, No-Buy” law that would keep people on terrorist watch lists from buying guns, and a law requiring universal background checks and closing the “gun show loophole”.

All four of the laws received majority approval, but did not reach the 60 vote threshold needed to move forward. Undaunted, Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) immediately drafted, and got numerous bi-partisan co-sponsorships, another “No-Fly, No-Buy” amendment that might actually be able to reach the super-majority needed.

Meanwhile, in the House, Democrats staged a 24 hour “sit-in” in the House chamber hoping to force votes on similar legislation there. They have promised to resume the sit-in when they reconvene after the July 4th holiday.

When that happens, I would like to see every Congress person’s office swamped with sit-in protesters. 90% of us want this. It is time to stand up by sitting down.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 24, 2016, 04:52PM
I like how we keep saying "Muslim Extremists from ISIS" when the people who did the shootings in Ft. Hood, Orlando, and San Bernardino were all American born.  Lanza in Sandy Hook Elementary School wasn't even Muslim -- he was an American born Christian.

Limiting immigration of Muslims isn't going to eliminate the mass shootings.  We have to find a way to deflect ISIL's ability to reach young, disaffected Muslim-Americans.

I also support limiting large capacity magazines for any hand gun.  We can't eliminate mass shootings by making handguns or simulated Assault Weapons illegal, we can definitely reduce the severity of their body counts.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 24, 2016, 05:09PM
when the people who did the shootings in Ft. Hood, Orlando, and San Bernardino were all American born.

American born from Muslim parents who came here. You have to stop it somewhere. Stop the cycle.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 24, 2016, 05:15PM
American born from Muslim parents who came here. You have to stop it somewhere. Stop the cycle.


Even if the parents came here before there was such a thing as ISIL?

How about we get rid of WASP immigrants from England?  Or Baptists?  Let's be a bit rational here, huh?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 24, 2016, 05:22PM
Even if the parents came here before there was such a thing as ISIL?

How about we get rid of WASP immigrants from England?  Or Baptists?  Let's be a bit rational here, huh?

It's obvious that WASP and Baptists are not the militants that the Muslims are. Sharia law is 100% incompatible with our Western culture, Constitution, and representative form of government. What's more, they don't agree with our cultures, and they do everything they can to bring their culture (Sharia law) here to our shores.

It will never work, and I don't know how many people are going to lose their lives, like in Orlando, before the compassionates among us ever get it.

Compassion without applying common sense makes great 'useful idiots'.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 24, 2016, 05:38PM
It's obvious that WASP and Baptists are not the militants that the Muslims are. Sharia law is 100% incompatible with our Western culture, Constitution, and representative form of government. What's more, they don't agree with our cultures, and they do everything they can to bring their culture (Sharia law) here to our shores.

It will never work, and I don't know how many people are going to lose their lives, like in Orlando, before the compassionates among us ever get it.

Compassion without applying common sense makes great 'useful idiots'.


So we send the Mooslims back to Arabia.
We send the Hindoos back to India.
We send the Chinese back to China.

Maybe we can sell Texas back to Mexico and get rid of all the ISIL "Mooslim Terrorists" who are swimming the Rio Grande. :evil:

Your sentiments sound surprisingly xenophobic.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 24, 2016, 08:22PM
So we send the Mooslims back to Arabia.
We send the Hindoos back to India.
We send the Chinese back to China.

Maybe we can sell Texas back to Mexico and get rid of all the ISIL "Mooslim Terrorists" who are swimming the Rio Grande. :evil:

Your sentiments sound surprisingly xenophobic.

That would indicate your level of understanding.  :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bonearzt on Jun 24, 2016, 08:57PM
So we send the Mooslims back to Arabia.
We send the Hindoos back to India.
We send the Chinese back to China.
Maybe we can sell Texas back to Mexico and get rid of all the ISIL "Mooslim Terrorists" who are swimming the Rio Grande. :evil:
Your sentiments sound surprisingly xenophobic.
Whatchoo talkin' bout Willis? ?
You're lucky we don't invade!!!!
Actually,  maybe we should. .....


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jun 25, 2016, 04:53PM
There seems to be a gap in the story line here. Muslims who emigrate to the US are escaping from tyrannies such as S. Hussein and the Assads and ISIL. They are not interested in repeating that experience in America.

The immigration ceiling numbers for the Near East/ South Asia area which includes these countries runs around 30-35,000 per year. The number of attacks by "radicalized" Muslims has been a handful each year. To make the math easy round that up to 30 which is 0.1% of the 30k number. That leaves 99.9% of Muslims who are doing fine as Americans.

There is no good reason to kick Muslims out of our country with their 99.9% success of being good citizens and based on this historic success rate, it doesn't make sense to block their immigration in the future.

The gap in the story line is what happens in America to their children that convinces them to give up the success of their parents and results in their being "radicalized"? That is the point at which we can get some leverage and make changes which will change the outcomes which lead to these senseless shootings.

Another point is why do the media and politicians keep repeating this nonsense? Could it be that they know these ridiculous programs will have no effect on the situation and that pursuing these programs is just for their job security?

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 25, 2016, 05:04PM
Muslims who emigrate to the US are escaping from tyrannies such as S. Hussein and the Assads and ISIL. They are not interested in repeating that experience in America.

I find it interesting that you think you know what they are interested in.  :dontknow:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 25, 2016, 05:46PM
I find it interesting that you think you know what they are interested in.  :dontknow:

I could easily say the same for you.

Note:  Sharia law cannot be made the rule in the US.  It may be used in religious disputes between two Muslims, but US laws take precedence if they apply.

Note: Nobody is going to force you to observe Ramadan.

Note: Nobody is going to force you to marry a Gay or a Muslim.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Jun 25, 2016, 05:48PM
I find it interesting that you think you know what they are interested in.  :dontknow:

That comment could serve well as an illustration in the dictionary for the term irony.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 25, 2016, 09:45PM
I could easily say the same for you.

Note:  Sharia law cannot be made the rule in the US.
Should not, not cannot.

Quote
It may be used in religious disputes between two Muslims,
All Sharia law, or just some, or some parts there of? In your beloved country, all civil and criminal issues are settled in courts, which is not how they believe.

Quote
Note: Nobody is going to force you to observe Ramadan.

Note: Nobody is going to force you to marry a Gay or a Muslim.

You bringing Johnny Carson back?



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 25, 2016, 10:44PM
Only way we can make Sharia law override US law is if we vote it in.  I don't see enough Muslims getting in to do that.  For that matter, most Muslims who live here don't want Sharia law as the law of the land either.  Just a bunch of nuts in Syria and any kid who watches too much YouTube.  Why are you so paranoid about Sharia law?  You afraid they won't let you force non-Christians to celebrate Christmas any more?

Non - Muslim example of how Sharia law may be used:  If two religious Jews want to get divorced, they must follow a religious procedure and issue a Get to the wife.  This divorce is only recognized in religious Jewish communities and a secular divorce would not allow these people to remarry.

>> Bring Johnny Carson back ...

Your age is showing, bucko... :razz:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 26, 2016, 05:30AM
For that matter, most Muslims who live here don't want Sharia law as the law of the land either. 

There you go again. How do you know what Muslims want? Do you hang out in Mosques all the time? If they don't want Sharia here, why do they keep building more and more Mosques? Is it just for the sound of music? (As Obama says)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 26, 2016, 05:53AM
Sharia Law CANNOT be instituted in the USA until the Constitution is completely abrogated. It is incompatible with the tenets set forth in the Constitution. As Bruce said, it CAN be used in conflict resolution withing the Muslim community, in their Mosques, so long as the participants agree to it, but it would have NO legal standing in a US Court of Law. THe small-minded fear of Sharia is a smoke screen which allows an unreasoned rationalization for hate and bigotry.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 26, 2016, 05:56AM
And what do Mosques have to do with Sharia?  A Mosque is simply a Church that's used by Muslims; much like a Synagogue is a Church that is used by Jews.  If the Mosque is unable to handle all its worshipers, it has to split, rebuild, or move.  If you can't pack any more worshipers to your Sunday service, do you expel them from your Church?  Do you send them elsewhere?  Or do you try to accommodate them?

You read way too much into this than there is.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jun 26, 2016, 11:29AM
I find it interesting that you think you know what they are interested in.  :dontknow:

Ultimately we can't tell what's in a man's heart but I have read their statements and had an interesting conversation with a Syrian "You think Hussein is bad, he's nothing compared to Assad.". Mostly though, these people are voting with their feet. America is a hard country to emigrate to. So I really think most Muslim come here to become Americans. To get away from chaos and make a better life for their children.

As to your previous comment about compassion I think being compassionate is a key part of being a Christian.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 26, 2016, 02:24PM

As to your previous comment about compassion I think being compassionate is a key part of being a Christian.

DRB
Seola Creek

Not in a whole lot of American churches it isn't.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 26, 2016, 09:30PM
Not in a whole lot of American churches it isn't.

What do you know about that?  :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 27, 2016, 04:23AM
What do you know about that?  :evil:

I should say the same about you.  I have never seen somebody so busy selectively tucking facts into a preconceived (and quite xenophobic) worldview.  A policy I'd never think someone educated in a science would do.  It's almost as if you decided that a certain junction should never have more than x amps and if it exceeds that then somebody is forcing current into it rather than analyzing the circuit and discovering that you misspecified a resistor.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Jun 27, 2016, 05:01AM
I should say the same about you. I have never seen somebody so busy selectively tucking facts into a preconceived (and quite xenophobic) worldview.

Given the rock steady and impervious nature of the pattern, not sure why anyone bothers at this point (or as of long ago).
 
But of course on the Interweb such poor behavior is lavished with attention ensuring that it chronically infects the social climate to an acute degree.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 27, 2016, 05:28AM
What do you know about that?  :evil:

Any American who moves about in our society is exposed to that reality on a daily basis. Especially if one participates in social media.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 27, 2016, 05:41AM
Any American who moves about in our society is exposed to that reality on a daily basis. Especially if one participates in social media.

Social Media? That's how you know so much about what goes on in Christian Churches?

Is that like "if it's on the internet, it must be true"?

Geez.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Jun 27, 2016, 05:50AM
Same pattern--same degree of merit.
 
Shocking!
 
Eh?
 
Of course that means it's all the more likely to garner direct attention, as if genuinely engaging the author in discussion (at least on the Interweb) is even an option.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 27, 2016, 05:57AM
...
Is that like "if it's on the internet, it must be true"?
...

If it's in Dickerson's mind it must be true :evil: :razz:

Remember, a resistor is a resistor and it has no malice toward an Electrical Engineer.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jun 27, 2016, 01:48PM
=ddickerson
"Whats  more, they don't agree with our cultures, and they do everything they can to bring their culture (Sharia law) here to our shores."

The organization is called the Islamic State in Syria (ISIS) or the Islamic State In the Levant (ISIL) not the Islamic States of America. The people who have attacked us did so because we attacked them. Muslims who come here do so  because they want a change. They leave the Islamic States and come to the United States. The vast majority here stay. A tiny number maybe 0.1% or less become discontented and leave.
It makes no sense to keep out tens of thousands of legitimate immigrants because a few tenths of a percentage of them might become terrorists.

"It will never work, and I don't know how many people are going to lose their lives, like in Orlando, before the compassionates among us ever get it.
Compassion without applying common sense makes great 'useful idiots'."

I hope I never "get it" in that way, putting compassion second to the ways of the world. The challenge for Christians is "to be in the world and not of the world". To go out into the world "as gentle as doves and as wise as serpents". To reach out with a compassionate heart but keeping our eyes wide open.

Finally we are "to judge a tree by the fruit it bears". The actual practices of Muslims in charity, economic justice, living in community, daily prayer would be commendable to any Christian. Blasting the many because of the sins of a few does not commend us as Christians.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 27, 2016, 08:46PM
Obviously, you don't get it. I said there was nothing wrong with compassion. There is a time and place for everything. Knowing when seems to be the stumbling block.

Engineers have similar challenges. They learn a lot of formulas, and laws, but some of them don't know when a particular law or formula is applicable. 

This statement: "The people who have attacked us did so because we attacked them".

Let's flashback to Thomas Jefferson:

"Thomas Jefferson’s response to Muslims in 1801 is more important today than ever. America’s first war with Islamic terrorists should be remembered."


 From Wikipedia:

The First Barbary War (1801–1805) also known as the Tripolitan War or the Barbary Coast War, was the first of two wars fought between the United States and the Northwest African Berber Muslim states known collectively as the Barbary States. These were the Ottoman provinces of Tripoli, Algiers, and Tunis, which were enjoying a large autonomy, as well as the independent Sultanate of Morocco. The war was fought because U.S. President Thomas Jefferson refused to pay the high tributes demanded by the Barbary states and because they were seizing American merchant ships and enslaving the crews for high ransoms. It was the first declared war the United States fought on foreign land and seas.

From Downtrend:

In 1786, Jefferson and John Adams met with Tripoli’s ambassador to Great Britain. They asked this ‘diplomat’ by what right his nation attacked American ships and enslaved her citizens and why the Muslims held such hostility toward this new nation, with which neither Tripoli nor any of the other Barbary Coast nations had any previous contact. The answer was quite revealing. Sidi Haji Abdul Rahman Adja (the ambassador) replied that Islam:

“Was founded on the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an, that all nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon them wherever they could be found, and to make slaves of all they could take as Prisoners, and that every Musselman (Muslim) who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

That is indeed quite revealing. Yet, America continued paying ransoms to these terrorists for the next fifteen years or so. Until Jefferson became President. Then, the Pasha (leader) of Tripoli sent a demand to the new leader for an immediate payment of $225,000 and $25,000 per year on an ongoing basis. Jefferson flatly refused, leading the Pasha to cut down the flagpole of the American consulate and declaring war on the United States. The rest of the terrorist states followed suit.

Jefferson had formerly been against raising a navy, but this soon changed as he was determined to meet force with force. A squadron of vessels was sent to the area and Congress authorized Jefferson to have the US ships seize all vessels and goods that belonged to the Pasha and anything else deemed necessary. As they saw the US was actually committed to the fight, Algiers and Tunis quickly abandoned the war and allegiance to Tripoli. Obviously, the US won the war. In fact, this was the reason why the line “to the shores of Tripoli” was added to the Marine Corps hymn.

So, why is there so much confusion as to the enemy that we're up against? It's not because of our gun laws, or anything we as a country did. It is not because "The people who have attacked us did so because we attacked them". They declared war on us as soon as we became a country!

It goes back to the to the Laws of their Prophet, that it was written in their Qur’an. That's over 1400 hundred years ago!
Thomas Jefferson understood it, why can't today's leaders get it?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jun 28, 2016, 08:46AM
Ddickerson
Faith is not science. With faith you keep to the same formula in all situations.
When you start using the rules of faith like the formulas of science, which formula to use in a given situation, you are in trouble. Your own selfish motivations effect your selection of which formula to apply. You go to scripture and find the text that fits your desires.

Most people today see slavery as an evil. In Jefferson's day many "good Christians" found Bible texts to justify their owning slaves.

In the same way the Muslims in the examples you site have found scriptural support for their piracy, selfishly justifying their making a lot of money by theft. I don't think their actions or statements reflect Islam. Rather, like so many things people do or say they reflect our own selfishness and greed.

ISIL wants to establish a new Caliphate. The Ottoman empire was the last Caliphate which was broken up after WW1. During WW1 the British fleet, during the time Churchill was first sea Lord,  had converted from coal to oil. Seeing the superiority of this fuel Churchill saw that having a secure petroleum supply was essential to the survival of the British Empire. England, France and Germany were negotiating with the Ottoman's to exploit near East oil before the war. Afterwards the Germans were kicked off the team the Americans demanded a seat at the table. They chopped up the old Empire into spheres of interest each with its own oil resource. (The British cheated a bit here, continuing to fight after the armistice to control an oil field which would have been in the French sector.)

Control of Near East oil under direct military occupation or client states continues today. The bombing today is a continuation of bombing started by Churchill in the 1920's.
Calling. It a war on terror or against the evils of Islam is just more selfish rationalization.

When ISIL is talking about the new Caliphate it is based on more than 100years of resentment. When ISIL attacks the west it rationalizes the attacks as revenge and uses each bomb or drone attack as a recruiting tool. Their use of Scripture is just self serving rationalization.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Jun 28, 2016, 10:20AM
Mark 12:28-31
Luke 10:29-37


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 28, 2016, 02:33PM
Ddickerson
Faith is not science. With faith you keep to the same formula in all situations.
When you start using the rules of faith like the formulas of science, which formula to use in a given situation, you are in trouble. Your own selfish motivations effect your selection of which formula to apply. You go to scripture and find the text that fits your desires.

Most people today see slavery as an evil. In Jefferson's day many "good Christians" found Bible texts to justify their owning slaves.

In the same way the Muslims in the examples you site have found scriptural support for their piracy, selfishly justifying their making a lot of money by theft. I don't think their actions or statements reflect Islam. Rather, like so many things people do or say they reflect our own selfishness and greed.

ISIL wants to establish a new Caliphate. The Ottoman empire was the last Caliphate which was broken up after WW1. During WW1 the British fleet, during the time Churchill was first sea Lord,  had converted from coal to oil. Seeing the superiority of this fuel Churchill saw that having a secure petroleum supply was essential to the survival of the British Empire. England, France and Germany were negotiating with the Ottoman's to exploit near East oil before the war. Afterwards the Germans were kicked off the team the Americans demanded a seat at the table. They chopped up the old Empire into spheres of interest each with its own oil resource. (The British cheated a bit here, continuing to fight after the armistice to control an oil field which would have been in the French sector.)

Control of Near East oil under direct military occupation or client states continues today. The bombing today is a continuation of bombing started by Churchill in the 1920's.
Calling. It a war on terror or against the evils of Islam is just more selfish rationalization.

When ISIL is talking about the new Caliphate it is based on more than 100years of resentment. When ISIL attacks the west it rationalizes the attacks as revenge and uses each bomb or drone attack as a recruiting tool. Their use of Scripture is just self serving rationalization.

DRB
Seola Creek

I didn't say Faith was to be treated like science. What's going on today extends back for over 1400 years, not 100, not 50, and not even the last 8.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Jun 28, 2016, 02:53PM
I didn't say Faith was to be treated like science. What's going on today extends back for over 1400 years, not 100, not 50, and not even the last 8.



Easy to follow a pattern after such an extended period ( maybe a little bit of benevolence, but mostly otherwise ).

Europe needs another Charles Martel.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 28, 2016, 02:56PM
I didn't say Faith was to be treated like science. What's going on today extends back for over 1400 years, not 100, not 50, and not even the last 8.



It's gone on since the first monkeys hallucinated a banana god and picked up sticks to beat other monkeys because they believed in the coconut god. Islam is no worse than any other "my way or the highway" religion. It just hasn't been around long enough for its rough edges to get rounded off.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 28, 2016, 05:29PM
Islam is no worse than any other "my way or the highway" religion.

You're not paying attention, but hey, you're a jazzer!(that's a good thang)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jun 29, 2016, 04:45PM
ddickerson
you wrote:
"I didn't say Faith was to be treated like science. What's going on today extends back for over 1400 years, not 100, not 50, and not even the last 8."
Earlier you wrote:
"Obviously, you don't get it. I said there was nothing wrong with compassion. There is a time and place for everything. Knowing when seems to be the stumbling block.
Engineers have similar challenges. They learn a lot of formulas, and laws, but some of them don't know when a particular law or formula is applicable. "

You established  parallel  phrases here which equate knowing when to be compassionate with an engineer knowing when to use a particular formula. To me you are saying that being compassionate is situational and should be applied as an engineer applies scientific formulas to individual situations.

The basis for Christian faith are Jesus' two commandments: "And Jesus said to him, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding — 38this is a first and great command; 39and the second [is] like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; 40on these — the two commands — all the law and the prophets do hang.’"
This is not situational ethics. The repetition of "with all" is a clue that this is to be our guide in all situations. And compassion "love thy neighbor as thyself" comes right in the middle. These commands are to lead us in all we do and say. If we are going to live our faith, then we need to go out into the world leading with a compassionate heart. We approach our neighbors, Muslim and ISIL, with compassion.

If you want to approach Muslims or ISIL as an engineer then do the science. Politicians say we should stop all Muslims from entering the US but the facts are not in it.  Find out the facts about the tens of thousands of Muslims who live peacefully as US citizens and the handful of ISIL terrorists involved in attacks within the US.

Either way the hate and fear being spread this year by politicians is not Christian or scientific.

Duff
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 30, 2016, 05:46AM

The basis for Christian faith are Jesus' two commandments: "And Jesus said to him, ‘Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thine understanding — 38this is a first and great command; 39and the second [is] like to it, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself; 40on these — the two commands — all the law and the prophets do hang.’"

Those two commands are like you say, however, they were not meant to repeal all other scripture.

Quote
If you want to approach Muslims or ISIL as an engineer then do the science.
Research shows that Muslims and their religion including Sharia Law is 100% in compatible with Western Culture, and more importantly our laws and Constitution. After more than 1400 hundred years, it has been proven that they will not assimilate into our culture. That's not rocket science, and it is not hard to prove. Just look at some of the areas here in the US where they have set up their 'zones', and look at Europe where the lack of assimilation is even more advanced.

I just saw an article this morning where in Europe they are starting to post signs warning of non-Muslims to not enter into non-Muslim free zones. The evidence is there if you're willing to look at it.

As you say Christianity preaches Love and the sanctity of life whereas Muslims preach sanctity of death. Christians preach 'thou shall not kill' whereas Muslims preach a path to Heaven is to kill non-Muslims. (Infidels)

Christians preach toleration of non-believers, whereas Muslims preach the killing of all non-believers. Theirs is the only religion that preaches death to all non-believers.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Jun 30, 2016, 06:38AM
Those two commands are like you say, however, they were not meant to repeal all other scripture.

Translation:  We should obey them, except when it's inconvenient. Then we'll look for a loophole somewhere else in scripture.  Or just ignore it altogether. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 30, 2016, 08:19AM
Like any other immigrants, when you move here you are bound by US law.

There are some aspects of the old religion that can be observed in this country.  For example, many Jews continue to eat Kosher food.  Kosher food is made in factories that get certified for it.  They may sell their food to non-Jews; there is nothing about Kosher that violates USDA regulations.  Same goes for Halal, the Muslim version of Kosher.  Now if you enter a Kosher or Halal restaurant, you can't get pork or cheeseburgers.  But nobody forces you to eat there.  And there are some really tasty dishes that are characteristically Kosher or Halal.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 30, 2016, 09:10AM
Translation:  We should obey them, except when it's inconvenient. Then we'll look for a loophole somewhere else in scripture.  Or just ignore it altogether. 

Your translation, not mine.  :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 30, 2016, 09:10AM
Like any other immigrants, when you move here you are bound by US law.

There are some aspects of the old religion that can be observed in this country.  For example, many Jews continue to eat Kosher food.  Kosher food is made in factories that get certified for it.  They may sell their food to non-Jews; there is nothing about Kosher that violates USDA regulations.  Same goes for Halal, the Muslim version of Kosher.  Now if you enter a Kosher or Halal restaurant, you can't get pork or cheeseburgers.  But nobody forces you to eat there.  And there are some really tasty dishes that are characteristically Kosher or Halal.

This post is relevant for the Food Channel perhaps.  :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 30, 2016, 09:14AM
Now if you enter a Kosher or Halal restaurant, you can't get pork or cheeseburgers.  But nobody forces you to eat there. 

So, if a non believe goes to a Kosher restaurant, they cannot order a cheeseburger because it would violate the servers religious beliefs, but a Cake Bakery has to serve cake that violates their religious beliefs.

Interesting......


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jun 30, 2016, 09:20AM
So, if a non believe goes to a Kosher restaurant, they cannot order a cheeseburger because it would violate the servers religious beliefs, but a Cake Bakery has to serve cake that violates their religious beliefs.

Interesting......

What about the cake violates their religious beliefs?  Or is it simply the customer that is the problem?

A Wedding Cake is a Wedding Cake.  The one for a gay wedding simply has two guys or two gals (if that's the decoration they choose -- many don't have a wedding couple on them). 

What if the Caterer bought the cake without the couple on it and placed the couple later.  Is that still going to violate your religious belief?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jun 30, 2016, 10:09AM
Ddickerson

"Those two commands are like you say, however, they were not meant to repeal all other scripture."

They represent "a new covenant with God". This implies that The Way of Jesus supercedes The Law of Moses. They do not repeal The Law. Judaism is still a valid religion. Christians should respect the Jewish tradition as the source of His faith but I think part of that respect is to be clear that I am not a Jew: I don't keep the Sabbath; I go to church on Sunday; and I don't live kosher. That is to say I don't follow the law I follow Jesus.


"Research shows...

As you say Christianity preaches Love and the sanctity of life whereas Muslims preach sanctity of death. Christians preach 'thou shall not kill' whereas Muslims preach a path to Heaven is to kill non-Muslims. (Infidels)"

Christians preach toleration of non-believers, whereas Muslims preach the killing of all non-believers."

Research? You're giving us opinions instead of facts. Downtrend, the source you sited earlier heads its home page with the topics " Obama, Outrage, Race, Hilary and Guns. This site sounds like a source of opinion not information.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jun 30, 2016, 11:06AM
Ddickerson ... "Christians preach toleration of non-believers, whereas Muslims preach the killing of all non-believers."

If that's true, then as a christian, shouldn't DD be preaching tolerance of muslims rather than how bad they are? :dontknow:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jun 30, 2016, 11:29AM
So, if a non believe goes to a Kosher restaurant, they cannot order a cheeseburger because it would violate the servers religious beliefs, but a Cake Bakery has to serve cake that violates their religious beliefs.

Interesting......
Key difference-

The kosher restaurant just doesn't serve pork or cheeseburgers. To anyone. It'd be like going to a bakery asking for a steak.

The cake bakery... well... serves cakes. That's what they do.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 30, 2016, 11:56AM
So, if a non believe goes to a Kosher restaurant, they cannot order a cheeseburger because it would violate the servers religious beliefs, but a Cake Bakery has to serve cake that violates their religious beliefs.

Interesting......

Massive, but stupefyingly unsurprising, false equivalence.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 30, 2016, 02:52PM
If that's true, then as a christian, shouldn't DD be preaching tolerance of muslims rather than how bad they are? :dontknow:

I can. I can preach tolerance of Muslim religion, but that doesn't change the fact that they have declared war on us.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 30, 2016, 02:56PM
What about the cake violates their religious beliefs?  Or is it simply the customer that is the problem?

A Wedding Cake is a Wedding Cake.  The one for a gay wedding simply has two guys or two gals (if that's the decoration they choose -- many don't have a wedding couple on them). 

What if the Caterer bought the cake without the couple on it and placed the couple later.  Is that still going to violate your religious belief?

I believe in freedom here in America where one isn't forced to bake a cake. You're just getting lost in details that don't matter.

If the gay couple didn't want to make an issue of it, they could have just ordered a cake, then decorate it themselves, and there wouldn't have ever been a problem, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gays. Or, more simply, gone to another bakery. But they didn't because they wanted to create a storm.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 30, 2016, 02:58PM
Ddickerson

"Those two commands are like you say, however, they were not meant to repeal all other scripture."

They represent "a new covenant with God". This implies that The Way of Jesus supercedes The Law of Moses. They do not repeal The Law. Judaism is still a valid religion. Christians should respect the Jewish tradition as the source of His faith but I think part of that respect is to be clear that I am not a Jew: I don't keep the Sabbath; I go to church on Sunday; and I don't live kosher. That is to say I don't follow the law I follow Jesus.


"Research shows...

As you say Christianity preaches Love and the sanctity of life whereas Muslims preach sanctity of death. Christians preach 'thou shall not kill' whereas Muslims preach a path to Heaven is to kill non-Muslims. (Infidels)"

Christians preach toleration of non-believers, whereas Muslims preach the killing of all non-believers."

Research? You're giving us opinions instead of facts. Downtrend, the source you sited earlier heads its home page with the topics " Obama, Outrage, Race, Hilary and Guns. This site sounds like a source of opinion not information.

DRB
Seola Creek

Do your research and you will see that I'm speaking truth.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 30, 2016, 03:06PM
I can. I can preach tolerance of Muslim religion, but that doesn't change the fact that they have declared war on us.

Awful broad brush you are painting with there, Dusty.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jun 30, 2016, 05:36PM
Do your research and you will see that I'm speaking truth.
I did. Here's what I learned-
The passage about killing infidels is not in the Quran. It's in the Shura, the collected teachings of the Prophet. It is a very specific teaching from the early days of Islam when the Muslims were in conflict with the Meccan pagans. It is very limited saying that this killing is only if you are attacked and children were not to be killed. It also goes on to say that the goal is to get unbelievers to accept the faith.

This has been taken out of context and used to rationalize many abuses of the faith.
It reminds me of St. Olaf forcing the Viking pagans into the river at sword point with the options of accepting Jesus or staying in the frigid water. This was when Olaf was unifying his power as king so it was more to do with accepting his authority than accepting Jesus. During the early days of Islam there were many conflicts when this same sort of rationalization was used to support secular power. A good example of the value of separating church and state.

DRB


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 30, 2016, 08:33PM
I did. Here's what I learned-
The passage about killing infidels is not in the Quran. It's in the Shura, the collected teachings of the Prophet. It is a very specific teaching from the early days of Islam when the Muslims were in conflict with the Meccan pagans. It is very limited saying that this killing is only if you are attacked and children were not to be killed. It also goes on to say that the goal is to get unbelievers to accept the faith.

This has been taken out of context and used to rationalize many abuses of the faith.
It reminds me of St. Olaf forcing the Viking pagans into the river at sword point with the options of accepting Jesus or staying in the frigid water. This was when Olaf was unifying his power as king so it was more to do with accepting his authority than accepting Jesus. During the early days of Islam there were many conflicts when this same sort of rationalization was used to support secular power. A good example of the value of separating church and state.

DRB

Name one religion that Muslims coexist with peacefully. Name one Western country that Muslims coexist with peacefully.

Is Trump responsible for the attack in Turkey? or any American policy?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Bruce the budgie on Jun 30, 2016, 09:40PM
Name one religion that Muslims coexist with peacefully. Name one Western country that Muslims coexist with peacefully.
Protestant Christianity, for example that Sunday morning when a Yoruba imam visited my parents' church in a small midwestern farming town. He preached a sermon of the understanding and joy that comes from immaterial things, and mingled well with the congregation afterwards.

Plenty of Muslims in Dearborn, Michigan, coexisting with other Michiganders. There are plenty of Muslims in my gritty old Northeastern mill town, coexisting just fine with the local Yankees. Just as American as you are, most of them.

There is an Egyptian dad who brings his daughters to our house for music lessons. He's a likable guy; I suspect you could get along with him, if you gave him a chance.

Quote
Is Trump responsible for the attack in Turkey? or any American policy?

If the electorate doesnt goof up too badly, Trump will never be responsible for any American policy.  :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 01, 2016, 04:19AM
I believe in freedom here in America where one isn't forced to bake a cake. You're just getting lost in details that don't matter.

If the gay couple didn't want to make an issue of it, they could have just ordered a cake, then decorate it themselves, and there wouldn't have ever been a problem, because the bakers don't refuse to serve gays. Or, more simply, gone to another bakery. But they didn't because they wanted to create a storm.

You continue with the false equivalencies. THe whole point of buying a cake from a bakery is to have them do the decorations. If they provide that service to you or me they can not deny it to someone else.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 01, 2016, 04:23AM

Name one religion that Muslims coexist with peacefully. Name one Western country that Muslims coexist with peacefully.


I just returned from the largest Muslim country in the world. THe area of that country I visited is 97% Hindu, and there is no strife betweeen the religions what so ever. THere is also a high percentage of Buddhists throughout the entire country. THere are many countries in Asia which are multi-religious where there is no confrontation between Islam and others. Here in the USA, other than lone wolf madmen, all of the non-peaceful coexistance going on with Muslims is being directed at them, not coming from them.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 01, 2016, 05:19AM
And, onward.......

Brexit
I can’t reconcile in my mind whether fear generates hatred and bigotry, or hatred and bigotry engender fear. But, I am absolutely clear that both are the product of ignorance.
 
That ignorance won a mind-boggling “victory” in last week’s “Brexit” referendum, as the UK voted to leave the EU. Almost before the precincts closed, many on the victorious “leave” side were like the dog that caught the car; “what have we done, and what do we do now?”.
 
The immediate fallout was a crashing of the British pound and world markets in which more than double the UK’s annual GDP was wiped off the balance sheets of the world’s wealth. Britain’s credit worthiness took a beating as all three major rating agencies downgraded their credit.
 
These enormous disruptions are only the first crumbles of what will become an avalanche of disaster as the full impact of this stupidity works its way through the process of disentanglement. The renegotiation of all trade and travel agreements Britain has been a part of will be done from a position of weakness. London’s days as a financial hub are probably in deep jeopardy.
 
It is quite possible that this decision will result in the destruction of the United Kingdom as a country. Both Scotland and No. Ireland voted overwhelmingly to stay in the EU. It is highly likely Scotland will now take another referendum to leave the UK, and the re-unification of Ireland is not out of the question.
 
PM David Cameron immediately resigned to allow the opposition to preside over the transition. The leader of the “Leave” movement, Boris Johnson, had the appearance of a rabbit in spotlight, first saying, “well, this is not something we need to rush into”, and then removing himself from consideration as Cameron’s successor.
 
How did this exercise in mass stupidity come about? Therein lies a lesson for us here in the USA. It was the angry, old, white guys that did it. This referendum was passed on the votes of the older, anti-immigrant, working class Brits with minimal education. There are still enough of them in England to garner a majority when they can be motivated to the polls. The young, the educated, and the ethnically diverse voted overwhelmingly to stay.
 
We are fortunate there are not enough xenophobic, old, white guys left in this country to elect Donald Trump and subject us to our own “Brexit”.
 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 01, 2016, 05:24AM
all of the non-peaceful coexistance going on with Muslims is being directed at them,

I never see any cases here where there is violence directed towards Muslims. What you call lone wolf madmen are Muslims, who are Muslim inspired killers to take up jihad here in our country.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jul 01, 2016, 05:54AM
The amount of backpedaling after the vote by the "Leave" faction was breathtaking.

I think EU is planning to "stick it" to GB as soon as they can.  Problem is UK has to initiate the exit by invoking a clause in the EU charter (Section 50?).  Seems nobody in the UK is now anxious to do so.

There have been calls for a "do over".  Even from the winning side.  Should be interesting.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 01, 2016, 05:56AM
I never see any cases here where there is violence directed towards Muslims. What you call lone wolf madmen are Muslims, who are Muslim inspired killers to take up jihad here in our country.

None are so blind as those who refuse to see........

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hate-attacks-muslims-u-s-spike-after-recent-acts-terrorism-n482456

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/22/us/Crimes-Against-Muslim-Americans.html?_r=0

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/hate-crimes-rise-along-with-donald-trumps-anti-muslim-rhetoric/

Etc., etc., etc. I could post a million, but you would "never see" them.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Jul 01, 2016, 06:00AM
The amount of backpedaling after the vote by the "Leave" faction was breathtaking.
 
I think EU is planning to "stick it" to GB as soon as they can.  Problem is UK has to initiate the exit by invoking a clause in the EU charter (Section 50?).  Seems nobody in the UK is now anxious to do so.
 
There have been calls for a "do over".  Even from the winning side.  Should be interesting.

Perhaps a case of egocentric angst getting a bit too much traction for comfort/the social media social climate encroaching too far into real life where self-absorption can do real damage.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 01, 2016, 06:12AM
I can. I can preach tolerance of Muslim religion, but that doesn't change the fact that they have declared war on us.
Sure you CAN, but as your followup sentence clearly shows.... you don't.

Which means either Christians don't preach/practice tolerance, or you simply choose to ignore that part for yourself.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 01, 2016, 06:29AM
None are so blind as those who refuse to see........

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/hate-attacks-muslims-u-s-spike-after-recent-acts-terrorism-n482456

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/22/us/Crimes-Against-Muslim-Americans.html?_r=0

https://theintercept.com/2016/05/05/hate-crimes-rise-along-with-donald-trumps-anti-muslim-rhetoric/

Etc., etc., etc. I could post a million, but you would "never see" them.

I just looked at the first link which had a lot of rhetoric, but no facts or actual news reports other than interviews that say they were victims of spray paint on their buildings. No bombs, no one killed, no attacks, just claims of being harassed. Even complaints that Americans don't want to accept our caliphate. Sheesh!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 01, 2016, 07:17AM
Sure you CAN, but as your followup sentence clearly shows.... you don't.

Which means either Christians don't preach/practice tolerance, or you simply choose to ignore that part for yourself.

No true. I live my life totally tolerant of other people's life styles, choices, religions, race, ethnicity, etc.

This is a forum where people come to discuss their opinions of different issues. Not the same.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Jul 01, 2016, 10:00AM
Sure you CAN, but as your followup sentence clearly shows.... you don't.
 
Which means either Christians don't preach/practice tolerance, or you simply choose to ignore that part for yourself.

Yes ... and that's all the more an issue with someone who doesn't have much if any appreciation for the intellectual and psychological effects of personal bias. There's a major self-awareness component to how bias actually translates into application--from perception into the real world, and unfortunately under-mitigated biases play strongly into both a lack of or a distorted sense of self-awareness as well as a lack of appropriate skepticism regarding one's personal sensibilities. It's a particularly ugly feedback loop.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 01, 2016, 11:31AM
No true. I live my life totally tolerant of other people's life styles, choices, religions, race, ethnicity, etc.
Except Muslims. And well, gays.

This is a forum where people come to discuss their opinions of different issues. Not the same.
So tolerance stops because this is the internet?

If you only have tolerance in your immediate personal connections, but not online or in your votes or talking to friends.... then it is not tolerance.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 01, 2016, 04:35PM
Except Muslims. And well, gays.
So tolerance stops because this is the internet?

If you only have tolerance in your immediate personal connections, but not online or in your votes or talking to friends.... then it is not tolerance.

You don't know what you're talking about. This is a discussion board, and as such, different opinions will be stated.

What you're calling for is censorship, whereas everybody has to share your opinion, or be called names.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jul 01, 2016, 04:45PM
So "I can live with Muslims" and "Muslims are at war with us" are actually the same feeling?  I sense a bit of a contradiction here.

Maybe you are trying to set yourself up as a target for the next crazed Wetback Muslim Terrorist? :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 02, 2016, 04:33AM
You don't know what you're talking about. This is a discussion board, and as such, different opinions will be stated.
Of course different opinions will be stated.

What you're calling for is censorship, whereas everybody has to share your opinion, or be called names.
Not at all.

I'm just pointing out that you fail your own supposed standard of tolerance. And well, proving yourself wrong.

Christians are tolerant! And Muslims want death for america!

So much for tolerance...

Or, as the bible puts it:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2016, 05:28AM
Of course different opinions will be stated.
Not at all.

I'm just pointing out that you fail your own supposed standard of tolerance. And well, proving yourself wrong.

Christians are tolerant! And Muslims want death for america!

So much for tolerance...

Or, as the bible puts it:

"Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles? Even so, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, nor can a bad tree bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Therefore by their fruits you will know them."

Your so full of anti-Christian bias, you can't think clearly, and then quote scripture to boot. LOL!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 02, 2016, 06:19AM

Christians are tolerant! And Muslims want death for america!


BLOODBATH IN BANGLADESH
Islamic radicals(Muslims) murder 20 hostages in café siege, quizzing their victims
on the Koran — then butchering those who failed to recite passages.

Actually, they want death for all infidels.

 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: jakeway1 on Jul 02, 2016, 08:25AM
Quote
You continue with the false equivalencies. THe whole point of buying a cake from a bakery is to have them do the decorations. If they provide that service to you or me they can not deny it to someone else.

I was reminded of a 2008 case in New Jersey involving one Heath Campbell, a self-described Nazi festooned in swastika tattoos. The case involved not a wedding cake, but rather a birthday cake for his three-year-old son, cuddly little Adolf Hitler Campbell. A worker at a ShopRite supermarket refused to squeeze out the words “Adolf Hitler” onto the cake in sugared frosting, leading Campbell to get his Hitler birthday cake at a local Walmart, which subsequently promised to review its “cake policy".

I don’t see any difference in refusing to bake a cake for a Nazi or a turd-tapper. It should be the baker’s decision alone. And religious convictions shouldn’t be the sole criterion. You should be able to refuse service to anyone merely because you don’t like their face or the way they smell. You should be able to tell them to get lost merely because you’re in a bad mood.

On the flip side of the equation, why would you want to buy a cake from someone who doesn’t like you? Better yet, why would you eat a cake baked by someone who doesn’t like you? Food tampering is not an urban legend, my friends.

What if I went into a sign-making shop in San Francisco’s Castro District and ordered a 20-x-10-foot sign that said SODOMY IS AN ABOMINATION? I’d be a jerk, that’s what.

A case in Canada pitted a Muslim barber who refused to cut a lesbian client’s hair due to Islamic proscriptions against touching lesbians…or something. Rather than seeking out a willing lesbian barber—this is Toronto, after all, and I’m sure it’s filled with eager lesbian barbers willing to make an honest buck shearing their cohorts—she went crying to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario.

I fear “rights” are a zero-sum game, and the spoils usually go to whoever is pushiest.

And these days, the LGBT's are pushing harder than a steroidal muscle fag mounting a bony twink from behind.

 
 



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jul 02, 2016, 01:58PM


[i" by their fruits you will know them."[/i]
Is this a gay reference?

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: jakeway1 on Jul 02, 2016, 08:34PM
More of an underwear reference..........


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 05, 2016, 09:44AM
Your so full of anti-Christian bias, you can't think clearly, and then quote scripture to boot. LOL!
Actually... I'm Christian. And just comparing your words against your own words. Pretty blatant contrast really.

Like if I said "christians don't cuss. I should know, I'm a MF'ing christian you sorry SOB."

By your own fruit...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 05, 2016, 08:07PM
Actually... I'm Christian. And just comparing your words against your own words. Pretty blatant contrast really.

Like if I said "christians don't cuss. I should know, I'm a MF'ing christian you sorry SOB."

By your own fruit...
Have I been cussing? MyBad. I didn't know it.

Anyone can claim to be a Christian, even if they don't accept the Word of God as the Truth.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 05, 2016, 08:14PM
None are so blind..............


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 06, 2016, 11:40AM
Anyone can claim to be a Christian, even if they don't accept the Word of God as the Truth.
Hence the fruit quote.  ;)

The actions must match the words...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 08, 2016, 05:05AM
Another one bites the dust.......

GOP Delusion

Well, another GOP exercise in wishful thinking fell to reality this week as the year long FBI investigation into the handling of E-mails by the Clinton State Dept. resulted in Hillary, once again, being exonerated of any criminal activity. While FBI Director James Comey did castigate Clinton and her staff for “reckless carelessness”, it did not rise to a level that would/could sustain an indictment.
 
It now appears that even some of that “reckless carelessness” was a result of the FBI having differing systems for the handling of classified information and therefore differing interpretations of specifics. Out of more that 30,000 emails the FBI reviewed, a total of 3 were found to have small sections marked with a small “ (c)” deep in the text.
 
These emails had no classified headings or other makings denoting them as “classified”, but at the FBI that “(c)” indicated a classified subsection or clause. Turns out that at the State Dept. that “(c)” means “confidential”, not classified.
 
Of course, the GOP, once again, blew a gasket when the actuality of the real world failed to coincide with their tin-foil hat delusions. Rep Jason Chaffetz, ( R, Utah), Chairman of the Oversight and Government Committee immediately called Director Comey before his committee to explain why his findings did not match GOP’s pre-conceived result.
 
For decades, the GOP has pushed their supporters to view the world as they believe it should be rather than as it is. Those supporters have now elected many who are just as delusional. This “movement” explains Donald Trump. The best description of the phenomenon I’ve seen was written by James Traub in Foreign Policy magazine.
 
“ The Republican Party, already rife with science-deniers and economic reality-deniers, has thrown itself into the embrace of a man who fabricates realities that ignorant people like to inhabit.
 
Did I say “ignorant”? Yes, I did. It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them. Is that “elitist”? Maybe it is; maybe we have become so inclined to celebrate the authenticity of all personal conviction that it is now elitist to believe in reason, expertise, and the lessons of history. If so, the party of accepting reality must be prepared to take on the party of denying reality, and its enablers among those who know better. If that is the coming realignment, we should embrace it.”


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jul 08, 2016, 05:33AM
(http://image.cagle.com/181602/765/181602.png?88ad5d)

By Pat Bagley.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 08, 2016, 05:44AM
(http://image.cagle.com/181602/765/181602.png?88ad5d)

By Pat Bagley.

That's beautiful!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Jul 08, 2016, 10:06AM
Another one bites the dust.......

GOP Delusion

Well, another GOP exercise in wishful thinking fell to reality this week as the year long FBI investigation into the handling of E-mails by the Clinton State Dept. resulted in Hillary, once again, being exonerated of any criminal activity. While FBI Director James Comey did castigate Clinton and her staff for “reckless carelessness”, it did not rise to a level that would/could sustain an indictment.
 
It now appears that even some of that “reckless carelessness” was a result of the FBI having differing systems for the handling of classified information and therefore differing interpretations of specifics. Out of more that 30,000 emails the FBI reviewed, a total of 3 were found to have small sections marked with a small “ (c)” deep in the text.
 
These emails had no classified headings or other makings denoting them as “classified”, but at the FBI that “(c)” indicated a classified subsection or clause. Turns out that at the State Dept. that “(c)” means “confidential”, not classified.
 
Of course, the GOP, once again, blew a gasket when the actuality of the real world failed to coincide with their tin-foil hat delusions. Rep Jason Chaffetz, ( R, Utah), Chairman of the Oversight and Government Committee immediately called Director Comey before his committee to explain why his findings did not match GOP’s pre-conceived result.
 
For decades, the GOP has pushed their supporters to view the world as they believe it should be rather than as it is. Those supporters have now elected many who are just as delusional. This “movement” explains Donald Trump. The best description of the phenomenon I’ve seen was written by James Traub in Foreign Policy magazine.
 
“ The Republican Party, already rife with science-deniers and economic reality-deniers, has thrown itself into the embrace of a man who fabricates realities that ignorant people like to inhabit.
 
Did I say “ignorant”? Yes, I did. It is necessary to say that people are deluded and that the task of leadership is to un-delude them. Is that “elitist”? Maybe it is; maybe we have become so inclined to celebrate the authenticity of all personal conviction that it is now elitist to believe in reason, expertise, and the lessons of history. If so, the party of accepting reality must be prepared to take on the party of denying reality, and its enablers among those who know better. If that is the coming realignment, we should embrace it.”

Did you pull this from an article? It's factually incorrect.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jul 08, 2016, 10:16AM
Did you pull this from an article? It's factually incorrect.

Russ' comments do appear to be a little off what was actually found.  I'm not privy to the exact findings (none of us are).  I'm sure Hillary was trying to use the private E-mail to segregate personal business (like planning Chelsea's wedding) from the official State Department stuff.  Some of the documents determined to be Classified may have been classified after the fact or may not have been too overt.

Was her setup more secure than DoS?  Probably no worse -- hackers have been inside the US Gummint network for quite a while.

Having misfiled 3 e-mails out of 30,000 is not a bad ratio.  I doubt most people would do as well.

Also, the stuff that was on her server was not super critical.

Did she do wrong?  Yes.  Did it sabotage the US?  No.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 08, 2016, 10:58AM
Did you pull this from an article? It's factually incorrect.
 

It was based on testimony I heard from Director Comey in the hearing and from comments I heard later from Congressman Elijah Cummings in the aftermath. They are accurate to the best of my knowledge. If I am mistaken, please point it out. I prefer to be accurate.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Jul 08, 2016, 11:24AM
Here's the AP with a fact check piece:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/588c1ba16f51484e8e0010b12b9e8b28/ap-fact-check-clinton-email-claims-collapse-under-fbi-probe

This was hardly the typical GOP witch hunt that some would like to portray it. I watched much of Comey's testimony and the guy took it like a champ. I actually feel better about the FBI as an agency knowing people like him are at the helm.

He made it clear that there was serious mishandling of state secrets but that it didn't rise to the level of criminality with intent, at least not beyond a shadow of a doubt. To be clear; laws were broken but he stated repeatedly that he personally didn't agree with charging someone for criminal behavior that was the result of negligence. Trey Gowdy actually called him out on this saying something like "as a prosecutor i've seen a lot of people claim they didn't know it was against the law to murder people." Hyperbolic but I think it's currently true that ignorance of the law is not immunity from it for most people. While I agree that the FBI probably made a really professional and good faith determination, I can see people latching on to that discrepancy.

I'm not sure what's worse, a president who flaunts the law or is just ignorant of it...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 08, 2016, 12:34PM
Here's the AP with a fact check piece:

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/588c1ba16f51484e8e0010b12b9e8b28/ap-fact-check-clinton-email-claims-collapse-under-fbi-probe
OK, so what part of what russ wrote is wrong?

This was hardly the typical GOP witch hunt that some would like to portray it. I watched much of Comey's testimony and the guy took it like a champ. I actually feel better about the FBI as an agency knowing people like him are at the helm.
That Comey was called into testify and pestered so much kinda shows that it IS partly a typical witch hunt... it does have serious implications, but certainly has witch hunt aspects too.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Jul 08, 2016, 12:59PM
Quote
Well, another GOP exercise in wishful thinking fell to reality this week as the year long FBI investigation into the handling of E-mails by the Clinton State Dept. resulted in Hillary, once again, being exonerated of any criminal activity. While FBI Director James Comey did castigate Clinton and her staff for “reckless carelessness”, it did not rise to a level that would/could sustain an indictment.

The FBI found them to have broken the law but could not prove intent. The activity was the same; the intent was in question. Over one hundred instances of law breaking in fact. We can parse semantics but Comey was clear that it came down to whether her intent to break the law could be well established in court.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/witch%20hunt

It's nice to get to throw out terms like this after the fact but nothing in Comey's press conference or subsequent testimony would suggest that the FBI investigation itself was a witch hunt. What the GOP decides to do after the fact or what they did with "Benghazi" are another matter...

I watched the lion's share of the testimony and it was a typical congressional Q/A where they're all just looking for sound bites and headlines. I'm not sure grilling someone about the investigation of a presidential candidate is really as dismissible as say having a million bajillion votes to repeal the ACA that will never go anywhere.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 08, 2016, 02:50PM
At no time did I call this one a "witch hunt", although the hearing certainly could be considered one. Comey is a solid GOP lifer, and prior to his inflicting reality on the GOP's indictment parade was considered to be incorruptible. THe GOP Reps in Congress couldn't believe he didn't give them their pre-concieved conviction.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Jul 08, 2016, 02:53PM
At no time did I call this one a "witch hunt", although the hearing certainly could be considered one. Comey is a solid GOP lifer, and prior to his inflicting reality on the GOP's indictment parade was considered to be incorruptible. THe GOP Reps in Congress couldn't believe he didn't give them their pre-concieved conviction.

The "witch hunt" item was to BOB. Address your quote in the box.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 08, 2016, 04:03PM
Comey is a solid GOP lifer,

He said under oath yesterday that he used to be a registered Republican, but not now. He classifies himself as an independent. <opinion>Which means he sides with the Democrats more often than not.</opinion>


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Jul 09, 2016, 09:06PM
He said under oath yesterday that he used to be a registered Republican, but not now. He classifies himself as an independent. <opinion>Which means he sides with the Democrats more often than not.</opinion>

What would be the basis for your opinion? (Just kidding--you don't need one.)

This seems to be a solid pattern: if a fair and thorough investigation doesn't arrive at the desired conclusion, it must be biased. That's why we have to keep trying. The latest is that the nutjobs who wanted the Benghazi investigation to show wrongdoing at all costs are now accusing Trey Gowdy of being in on the conspiracy.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 10, 2016, 04:17AM

This seems to be a solid pattern: if a fair and thorough investigation doesn't arrive at the desired conclusion, it must be biased. That's why we have to keep trying. The latest is that the nutjobs who wanted the Benghazi investigation to show wrongdoing at all costs are now accusing Trey Gowdy of being in on the conspiracy.


Only on one side. I've likened it to a couple of 5 year olds with shovels. When asked why they had dug 500 holes in their backyard in Kansas, they replied, "Uncle Bob told us pirates buried treasure here in the yard. We know if we dig enough holes, we'll find it."


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Jul 10, 2016, 07:44AM
What would be the basis for your opinion? (Just kidding--you don't need one.)
If you follow the pattern of a certain member of my fan club, which has been thankfully dormant, you wait until he's gone over everything at least once (well, with someone who has a something to go over of course) and then ask basically So what's your point? What is all this about anyway?
 
This seems to be a solid pattern: if a fair and thorough investigation doesn't arrive at the desired conclusion, it must be biased. That's why we have to keep trying. The latest is that the nutjobs who wanted the Benghazi investigation to show wrongdoing at all costs are now accusing Trey Gowdy of being in on the conspiracy.
And many will actually pretend nothing's been done at all, as if none of that ever happened ... because of course if it had it would have to completely agree with their initial, unquestioned and entirely unvetted sentimental reaction. To be fair, for those who respond this way there seems to be little if any difference between their initial reaction and what they understand to be their processed/considered response.
 
Doesn't our education system teach students to develop beyond this thinking from about age 5 or 6 to usually about age 15 or 16 or so any more? It seems that just by being amongst other people and even just more or less getting along one would pretty much have to learn to think better than that, even if for the slower and/or more self-absorbed minds it may require the full decade. How can people develop into adulthood within a society of other people, and still manage to be as self-absorbed as a young school child? I find that amazing in spite of how common it seems to be getting.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 10, 2016, 07:49AM
It's nice to get to throw out terms like this after the fact but nothing in Comey's press conference or subsequent testimony would suggest that the FBI investigation itself was a witch hunt. What the GOP decides to do after the fact or what they did with "Benghazi" are another matter...

Actually, you are the originator of that term in this context.

This was hardly the typical GOP witch hunt that some would like to portray it.

And well, let us not forget HOW they got this. Not because there was a problem or lapse in security or such, but by way of that said Benghazi witch hunt.

So yes, while the investigation was valid itself, it came up because of a witch hunt, was pushed politically as a witch hunt, and interviewed after the same way. Just because the FBI is professional doesn't make congress... Just like now the investigation is concluded and no charges will be filed, those same idiots want to use this to bash in an already overused point.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Jul 10, 2016, 02:19PM
OK, so what part of what russ wrote is wrong?
That Comey was called into testify and pestered so much kinda shows that it IS partly a typical witch hunt... it does have serious implications, but certainly has witch hunt aspects too.

This is the origin of your positive claim that this was somehow witch hunt-y. I used the term but you made the claim; just to be accurate.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Jul 11, 2016, 12:35AM
Only on one side. I've likened it to a couple of 5 year olds with shovels. When asked why they had dug 500 holes in their backyard in Kansas, they replied, "Uncle Bob told us pirates buried treasure here in the yard. We know if we dig enough holes, we'll find it."

Sorry, but it's not all on one side. My sister's feeling the Bern, as are many of my friends, and if the primaries didn't turn out their way, it must be a scandal of one sort or another.  People just start with the unsatisfactory result and look for the nefarious reason that must certainly precede it.

People are mostly dopes.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 15, 2016, 05:22AM
And, now for something completely different......

Guns, Yet Again

Last week we saw juxtaposition of two of the most pernicious and vexing problems our country is plagued with, the institutional racism in our criminal justice system and the wild-west, shoot-em-up insanity of our out of control gun-culture. Hopefully it has resulted in the birth of an actual national discussion on these matters, as opposed to the talking past each other that has been the staus quo.

First in La., and then in Minn., we saw two black men gunned down by police officers. Making these cases different than so many others, both of these victims were armed. LEGALLY.

In neither case was the individual acting in an aggressive manner towards the police involved in the shooting, nor did either of them have their weapons in their hands. In both cases there is video of the encounter, although history shows that may not be enough to guarantee accountability will be enforced.

The Governor of Minnesota, Mark Dayton (I really wish he were being vetted as Hillary’s VP pick) stated he did not believe the victim there would have been shot were he white. I can’t disagree. The “Black Lives Matter” movement exists for a legitimate reason.

Then, at a peaceful protest by that group in Dallas, a black Afghanistan war veteran used those shootings as an excuse to go on a rampage against white police officers. Before it was over he had shot 12 officers, killing six. It was a truly horrific, unjustified attack on a police department that, by all accounts, has done as good a job dealing with its institutional issues as any in the country.

The attack showcased the absolute vapidity of the NRA’s empty slogan, “the only thing that will stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun”. There were over 100 “good guys” (Cops) with guns on the scene, and yet it took hours, and an explosives robot, to end the massacre.

Totally confusing the scene was the prevalence of “open carry” stupidity going on in the crowd of protestors participating in the non-violent march. The police had NO way of knowing whether or not the armed people they were seeing were innocent bystanders or part of the confrontation. That is just INSANELY STUPID.

In 1870’s wild west Dodge City, cowboys were required to check their guns upon entering town. It seems we have unlearned a lot in150 years.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Jul 15, 2016, 11:03AM
First in La., and then in Minn., we saw two black men gunned down by police officers. Making these cases different than so many others, both of these victims were armed. LEGALLY.

...

In neither case was the individual acting in an aggressive manner towards the police involved in the shooting, nor did either of them have their weapons in their hands. In both cases there is video of the encounter, although history shows that may not be enough to guarantee accountability will be enforced.

Do we know any of this to be factually accurate? I haven't seen footage of the MN shooting, only the immediate aftermath. Do we know that the suspect in LA was not being aggressive? I only saw them wrestling with him on the ground before he got shot. This isn't to say that those narratives aren't accurate, just asking whether they are established fact.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jul 15, 2016, 11:10AM
We have the word of the MN victim's girlfriend that he did not brandish the weapon.  The audio from her camera shows a scared Cop who was out of control.  He could easily have asked that the weapon be put on the dashboard before the license and registration were provided.  Instead, he almost shot the guy by accident -- he was holding the gun at the ready expecting the guy to brandish his weapon; which didn't happen.

So it seems you can carry a firearm for protection, and it may not protect you.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Jul 15, 2016, 11:42AM
I'm noticing a pattern in many of these stories where citizen carry of weapons puts them in danger.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Jul 15, 2016, 11:49AM
I'm noticing a pattern in many of these stories where citizen carry of weapons puts them in danger.

Yeah, but be fair.  That danger occurs mostly after the police arrive, when you no longer have any need for the weapon.  You were already at some risk from the incident before that happened, whether or not you had a weapon. 

If I'm a cop trying to deal with a confusing scene, I'm sure I'd rather not have to sort out armed criminals from armed victims though. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Jul 15, 2016, 02:21PM
We have the word of the MN victim's girlfriend that he did not brandish the weapon.  The audio from her camera shows a scared Cop who was out of control.  He could easily have asked that the weapon be put on the dashboard before the license and registration were provided.  Instead, he almost shot the guy by accident -- he was holding the gun at the ready expecting the guy to brandish his weapon; which didn't happen.

So it seems you can carry a firearm for protection, and it may not protect you.

1. If I wouldn't accept the word of an officer as ironclad why would I accept the word of any other eyewitness? (I wouldn't)This is why I'd be in favor of body and barrel cameras for all law enforcement. Mics as well and redundant.

2. Her camera only depicts what happened after the shooting. It's a mistake to assume anything about what lead up to it either for or against any particular narrative.

3. Police don't wait for you to "brandish" your weapon. It's not the old west and we don't encourage officers to engage in quick draw contests.

I just numbered to keep things neater.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 22, 2016, 05:36AM
WOw, this was a busy week in PP! Good to see it. THis week's effort

RNC 2016

It’s official. Donald J. Trump is the nominee of the GOP to run in the upcoming election. Four days of fact and content free, reality TV “Fear and Loathing” (with apologies to Hunter Thompson) at the RNC Convention in Cleveland ended with “The Donald” giving a long-winded, meandering acceptance speech filled with the same spin, misinformation, and out-right lies that characterized the entirety of the event.

During the convention there were two overarching “themes” that permeated every aspect of the activities and speeches of the attendees. Neither “theme” had anything to do with moving this country forward or solving the problems we, as a nation, face. The first of these “themes” was “FEAR”.

Attendees were warned again and again to be afraid. Be very afraid. Afraid of immigrants. Afraid of refugees. Afraid of Muslims. Afraid of Black Lives Matter. Afraid of Hillary Clinton. Afraid of their very shadows it would seem.

The second overarching “theme” in Cleveland was “LOATHING” of Hillary Clinton. Every disproven, manufactured “scandal” created by the witch hunts, kangaroo courts, and tin-foil hat conspiracies the right has thrown at the Clintons over the last quarter century was brought out and paraded around the arena as if they were reality rather than the wishful thinking they have been proven to be.

One theme the convention reached for, but didn’t come within a mile of, was the sense of a party unifying in support of their candidate. Possibly the single most notable aspect of the convention was who wasn’t there. No former Presidents, no former Nominees of the party, no Governor of the host State, no major GOP politicians other than the Speaker of the House and the Senate Majority leader, who had to attend.

This convention was fragmented with strife. Sen. Ted Cruz finally unified the delegates in attendance by refusing to endorse “The Donald”. Instead, he urged delegates to “vote their conscience”.

There were two notable speeches. Ivanka Trump’s introduction of her father was a heartfelt, and moving tribute. If only the reality of “The Donald” matched her romanticized image of him.

The other was by Rudy Giuliani. He spent his time ranting about the aforementioned disproven tin-foil hat conspiracies aimed at Clinton, working himself up to a frothing at the mouth finale. At the end, he yelled to the crowd, “ARE WE CRAZY?” To which they roared back, “YES, WE ARE”.

And, there, you have it.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 22, 2016, 05:43AM
Actually, there were presidential nominees in attendance. Not all of them though.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 22, 2016, 06:23AM
Actually, there were presidential nominees in attendance. Not all of them though.

Well, one out of three potential nominee attendees. Nice catch, and my bad. Too late to change it unlless my editor catches it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Ellrod on Jul 22, 2016, 06:50AM
The speech was straight out of Star Wars: give in to your fear, give in to your anger, give in to the dark side.

If you are a Muslim, a Latino, or even an Asian, living in America, are you a little ( a lot?) nervous about Trump's message?

I thought the speech was rather poorly received. There were plenty of delegates who ate it up, but there appeared to be a sizeable number, maybe a third or more, who evidently were not drinking the Kool-Aid. At least, that's the way it looked on the NPR broadcast.

Still, the immediate reaction in our house - I watched the speech with my wife and sons - was that he's going to win.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 22, 2016, 07:47AM
The speech was straight out of Star Wars: give in to your fear, give in to your anger, give in to the dark side.

If you are a Muslim, a Latino, or even an Asian, living in America, are you a little ( a lot?) nervous about Trump's message?

I thought the speech was rather poorly received. There were plenty of delegates who ate it up, but there appeared to be a sizeable number, maybe a third or more, who evidently were not drinking the Kool-Aid. At least, that's the way it looked on the NPR broadcast.

Still, the immediate reaction in our house - I watched the speech with my wife and sons - was that he's going to win.



NPR is not a good place to get your news, if you actually want unbiased reporting.

Well, actually, there is NO channel that offers totally unbiased reporting. So, just go to the one that makes you feel good, and don't worry about what other people say.  :)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Jul 22, 2016, 07:55AM
Well, actually, there is NO channel that offers totally unbiased reporting. So, just go to the one that makes you feel good, and don't worry about what other people say.  :)

I feel comfortable saying that NPR is less biased than many, more profit motivated, sources. Fox' news side isn't bad; it just blends to readily with it's over-the-top right wing opinion side. I liked Shep Smith for a long time, especially after he flipped out on Fox Business over American torture programs. He also didn't jump on the Glenn Beck train, and that was hilarious too.

I say choose a source that spins it the way you like but understand why that is and make sure to check in with the opposition, not to enrage yourself but to understand where they're coming from.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jul 22, 2016, 07:59AM
Trump managed to whip up xenophobia in spades.  He laced into the very people the Republicans will need to win the election.  Then he went and alienated the very base by talking about protecting LGBTQ people from terrorism and bathroom laws.

He also came across as a Demagogue.  Note that he kept saying "I will do this" and "I will do that" instead of asking the Nation to "Help me do this" and "Help me do that".

Also, it was a speech filled with promises without any substance on how to accomplish his aims.  It's like Obamacare: "Elect me and we'll find out what is my program".

Ted Cruz was understandably miffed since Trump has dissed his wife and his father and he never got an apology from Trump.  I don't agree with Cruz's policies but I understand his animus.  If somebody did that to me I'd be miffed as well. (you can insert a stronger epithet for "miffed")


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Jul 22, 2016, 08:06AM
The speech was straight out of Star Wars: give in to your fear, give in to your anger, give in to the dark side.
Yup ... Trump is the fear and anger candidate (http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/22/us/politics/donald-trump-rnc-speech.html?).
 
Still, the immediate reaction in our house - I watched the speech with my wife and sons - was that he's going to win.
Why?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Jul 22, 2016, 08:13AM


Ted Cruz was understandably miffed since Trump has dissed his wife and his father and he never got an apology from Trump.  I don't agree with Cruz's policies but I understand his animus.  for "miffed")

Yeah, me too.

But Ted claims to be an evangelical Christian.  There are supposed to be some actual behavioral requirements associated with that, not just a claim to believe. 

One of those requirements is to forgive. 

That's not a conditional requirement.  "I will forgive if my enemy does XXX, or I will forgive if my enemy is the same color and religion as me, or I will forgive if my enemy is sufficiently apologetic publicly."  Nope.  It's unconditional.  You must forgive.  It's about your requirement, not the other guy's. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Jul 22, 2016, 08:16AM
He also came across as a Demagogue.  Note that he kept saying "I will do this" and "I will do that" instead of asking the Nation to "Help me do this" and "Help me do that".
 
Also, it was a speech filled with promises without any substance on how to accomplish his aims.  It's like Obamacare: "Elect me and we'll find out what is my program".
His supporters (those who aren't doing it for purely political or other secondary reasons) react favorably to declarations presented as if they were arguments--it's about getting their ears and egos tickled, basically. If his declaration affirms their personal sensibilities that means it's a good argument. They don't seem very well cognitively equipped to recognize the difference.
 
Ted Cruz was understandably miffed since Trump has dissed his wife and his father and he never got an apology from Trump.  I don't agree with Cruz's policies but I understand his animus.  If somebody did that to me I'd be miffed as well. (you can insert a stronger epithet for "miffed")
The Cruz story demonstrates the extreme shallowness of the whole "values voters" schtick. To his credit Cruz has always been consistent about being all about values. They're just extremely misguided--exactly what spoke to [pseudo]-"values" voters. Or rather, exactly the labels "values" voters want to slap over the ones that actually represent them.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Jul 22, 2016, 09:02AM
It's my understanding that according to CNN's polling or focus groups his address was received very positively. Given the recent polling I'd say he's got a surprisingly good shot at coming out ahead of Clinton. It will probably be affected by further scandals from both campaigns. Wonder what Wikileaks has up its sleeve...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Ellrod on Jul 22, 2016, 09:46AM

 Why?

Because, if the police are not safe, how safe is any of us?

The fear, together with the demonization of Mrs. Clinton,  is pretty persuasive, especially on an emotional level. To continue the Star Wars reference, the dark side is strong.

I also looked at the fact checker stories this am. I was surprised that Trump was, I thought, not completely  factually inaccurate, especially in his assessment of the Clintons. That does not bode well for the Dems. It seems to me that HC is the velcro, as opposed to the teflon, candidate: everything sticks.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jul 22, 2016, 12:29PM
=Ellrod
"The speech was straight out of Star Wars: give in to your fear, give in to your anger, give in to the dark side."

I thought it was more of a Biblical knock off "I am the one" "I will save you from the forces of darkness."

The lines not included are to beware of false profits (yes that was intended) or to judge a tree by the fruit it bears.


"Still, the immediate reaction in our house - I watched the speech with my wife and sons - was that he's going to win."

Yes, he is very good at what he does. If HRC tries the same route as Cruz et al and refute him with facts, she will walk into the same buzz saw.

I seriously think her only hope is to ignore him. Refuse to engage and be bullied. If she refuses to debate, saying that Trump made a mockery of the republican debates and refused to participate and that she refuses to support that behavior, she will win.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 22, 2016, 01:15PM
Presidential debates are significantly different than primary debates. One on one, Trump will not be able to get away with his bullyiing ignorance. The first time Hillary laughs at one of his responses, and it is inevitable, he will lose it, and the election.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 22, 2016, 01:20PM
I seriously think her only hope is to ignore him.
Unfortunately, that was the tactic taken by most of the gop candidates early on. Then they realized that was backfiring... HARD.

Refuse to engage and be bullied. If she refuses to debate, saying that Trump made a mockery of the republican debates and refused to participate and that she refuses to support that behavior, she will win.
Well.... but then she also proves that she can't deal with a difficult situation. Says she's elected president, and the middle east go much worse than it already is... what, back off and pretend it doesn't exist either?


As a random aside, the Clinton campaign just release a "trump yourself" facebook meme generator. Smart in that it helps collect user data via facebook... but it also helps turn the seriously wrong things trump says, and view them as a joke. Really helps lessen the impact and severity. So far, the clinton campaign has not done well vs trump. Like their "loves trumps hate" slogan, which starts off with "love trump". oops.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jul 22, 2016, 01:40PM
Presidential debates are significantly different than primary debates. One on one, Trump will not be able to get away with his bullyiing ignorance. The first time Hillary laughs at one of his responses, and it is inevitable, he will lose it, and the election.
I think you underestimate our man. He doesn't give a s__t if he loses so he is free do do what he wishes. He will contine his bloviating and obfuscation. If the moderators try to control him he will say the system is rigged against him, play the victim and if they don't fold he will quit,campaigning as a martyr of an unjust system.

If HRC laughs at him he will flip that into a witch's cackle and proof of her evil ways.

HRC needs to absolutely ignore him, treating him as a misbehaving toddler.
This will work with Trump as well as a two year old because the greatest fear of both is that no one loves him.

Remember Trump is a protege of Roy Cohn. The man who convinced Ethel Rosenberg's brother to falsely testify against his own sister and send her to the electric chair. Talk about salesmanship.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Jul 22, 2016, 01:44PM
I have a theory.

Trump and Bill Clinton cooked the whole thing up as a joke so Hillary would win.

But the train developed its own momentum, and Trump got caught listening to his own speeches, and now he's a believer. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 22, 2016, 01:55PM
Presidential debates are significantly different than primary debates. One on one, Trump will not be able to get away with his bullyiing ignorance.
To remember, Romney "won" the first debate against Obama because he basically flipped his positions on stage and caught Obama off guard. Suddenly Obama was hitting romney on positions that he agreed were bad too, and he didn't believe in them...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jul 22, 2016, 02:03PM
Bob
1 The mistake of the seven little dwarves was not ignoring Trump but not absolutely ignoring him- they showed up, tried to debate around him and lost control to him.
2 Ignoring is standard presidential and diplomatic behavior. A misscreant country's ambassador doesn't get to see the president, sits at the far end of the banquet table or is palmed off on the secratary of state or, heaven forbid, the vice president.
3. The FB concept is the way to get to Trump. Use social media to inform the electorate and engage them in making their own criticism of Trump. I've seen already two Bernie Sanders posts refuting Trump's speech. That's another good way to attack while ignoring.

I really think this is the only way HRC can succeed.

DRB
Seola Creek

Unfortunately, that was the tactic taken by most of the gop candidates early on. Then they realized that was backfiring... HARD.
Well.... but then she also proves that she can't deal with a difficult situation. Says she's elected president, and the middle east go much worse than it already is... what, back off and pretend it doesn't exist either?


As a random aside, the Clinton campaign just release a "trump yourself" facebook meme generator. Smart in that it helps collect user data via facebook... but it also helps turn the seriously wrong things trump says, and view them as a joke. Really helps lessen the impact and severity. So far, the clinton campaign has not done well vs trump. Like their "loves trumps hate" slogan, which starts off with "love trump". oops.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jul 22, 2016, 02:11PM
I have a theory.

Trump and Bill Clinton cooked the whole thing up as a joke so Hillary would win.

But the train developed its own momentum, and Trump got caught listening to his own speeches, and now he's a believer. 

(The concept of Bill and the Donald in one room Uffda.)
Nah Trump is broke and looking for a job with good bennies and a retirement plan.
The last hard numbers on him were drone by Deutsche Bank in 2005 who valued him at $750 million.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jul 22, 2016, 02:57PM
Yeah, me too.

But Ted claims to be an evangelical Christian.  There are supposed to be some actual behavioral requirements associated with that, not just a claim to believe. 

One of those requirements is to forgive. 

That's not a conditional requirement.  "I will forgive if my enemy does XXX, or I will forgive if my enemy is the same color and religion as me, or I will forgive if my enemy is sufficiently apologetic publicly."  Nope.  It's unconditional.  You must forgive.  It's about your requirement, not the other guy's. 

None of us is perfect for sure, and Ted probably hasn't forgiven Trump for the assault on his family. However, even if he did forgive him, that doesn't mean he had to 'endorse' him though. Especially without Trump apologizing and asking for 'forgiveness'. But wait, Trump has never had to ask for anyone's forgiveness, not even from God.

Now where does that leave us?



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 22, 2016, 04:01PM
I have a theory.

Trump and Bill Clinton cooked the whole thing up as a joke so Hillary would win.

But the train developed its own momentum, and Trump got caught listening to his own speeches, and now he's a believer. 

Did this one about a week into Trump's primary campaign last summer........

I saw a Republican Congressman suggesting Donald Trump is a Democrat plant in the GOP Presidential field. I find that a little far fetched. The Dems are rarely that organized or smart.

That said, after 30 years of off-the-wall, cockamamie “Clinton Conspiracy” theories, I think the tin-foil hat crowd may be missing one that might actually be real. Picture this:

Donald Trump and Bill Clinton in the study of Trump’s Manhattan penthouse, brandy and cigars in hand;

DT: “I can win this thing for you.”

BC: “Yeah? How’s that?”

DT: “How do Republicans ever win an election?”

BC: “They get a bunch of people, who don’t think too deeply, to vote against their own interests.”

DT: “What if I were to peel those people off of their electorate?”

BC: “Hillary would win in a cake walk. Perot did it for me.”

Now, I obviously have no idea that a meeting like that ever took place, but, based on current events in the GOP primary field, it is entirely believable.

Over the years Trump has given massive amounts of money to the Clintons and other Democratic candidates. He has, in the past, supported such staunchly Democrat positions as Pro-Choice, Universal Health Care, and an assault weapons ban and longer waiting periods for gun sales. As late as 2008 he was a registered Democrat.

Much of Trump’s campaign rhetoric is red meat for the lunatic fringe on the right. He talks about awakening the “Silent Majority” (actually a good description of the Bernie Sanders campaign), but it is really the loud minority of the TEA Party right that he is appealing to. They truly have the fantasy they represent what the bulk of Americans believe, but, at best, they make up +/- 15% of the population.

Remember, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain were at the front of the GOP pack at this point in the last cycle. It is hard to imagine Trump maintaining the momentum he currently has at his back. But, for now, he is truly tapping into the rage and fear of those on the right wing fringe. That is taking the wind out of the sails of all but a couple of the 15 candidates with their hats in the GOP ring.

Can’t say my Clinton theory holds much, if any, water, but Bill Clinton and Donald Trump are smart enough to have come up with it. Genius!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Jul 22, 2016, 07:11PM
Bill and the Donald?
I have to admit it's more fun to think about than Trump as a real candidate.
On the other hand what would Trump get out of it? Altruism doesn't seem his strength.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 23, 2016, 04:59AM
At the time I thought it was a joke. Well, I still think it's a joke, but it is a terribly un-funny joke, and we are all the butt of it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 29, 2016, 06:11AM
What a contrast!

DNC

It boggles my mind there are people in this country who, after watching the nominating conventions of our two major parties, could possibly be considering voting for Donald Trump. The contrast between the two candidates, and the parties and visions they represent, could not be more stark.
 
In Cleveland we were presented with a portrait of America straight out of a 1950’s comic book. A society akin to Gotham City where social norms had broken down to the point they could only be saved by a super-hero. We were told we, as a country, need to shine the Bat Light into the sky and call for the caped crusader, TRUMP, to come to our rescue.
 
In Philadelphia we were presented with a party grounded in the real world and led by competent adults with a vision of what the real problems facing this country are, and concrete plans for implementation to solve them. We heard messages of inclusion and hope in contrast to the exclusion and fear we were bombarded with the previous week.
 
After a week of B grade celebrities and fringe politicians we were treated to a week of genuine star power. The President of the US, the VP of the United States, an Ex-President of the United States, Senators, Mayors, and a bevy of the most highly regarded performers in the world.
 
But, the most stark difference was between the two candidates themselves. One a life-long combatant in the socio-political arena, the other a snake-oil salesman with a history of self aggrandizement and profiteering off of the labor of others. Marine Lt. Kristen Kavanaugh noted Trump lacks three basic qualities ALL military personnel are taught on their first day of Basic Training; Discipline, Integrity, and Leadership.
 
After 25 years of manufactured scandals, witch hunts, unlimited millions of dollars, and un-numbered Congressional  hearings into her activities have turned up absolutely NOTHING of significance about Hillary Clinton , it is time for the “untrustworthy” label to be put to bed. There has never been a candidate for the Presidency more vetted than this Democrat nominee.
Trump, on the other hand, has MANY, all too documented cases of his lack of trustworthiness on the record. The best description of Trump came when Hillary quoted Jackie Kennedy; "wars might be started not so much by big men as by the little ones... moved more by fear and pride."

Trump is dangerous.




Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 29, 2016, 06:37AM
After a week of B grade celebrities and fringe politicians we were treated to a week of genuine star power. The President of the US, the VP of the United States, an Ex-President of the United States, Senators, Mayors, and a bevy of the most highly regarded performers in the world.
Honestly, the strongest for me came from none of the above...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbjhzI1g3EE


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 29, 2016, 10:08AM
Honestly, the strongest for me came from none of the above...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tbjhzI1g3EE

Saw that in the other thread. Powerful, but only one amongst many. The Mom from the Pulse nightclub, the young woman who appeared to have ALS, the Marine Lt. I mentioned. All amazing. Nothing even remotely similar the week before.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 29, 2016, 10:30AM
Another great one......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z7lN7nQjG0


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jul 29, 2016, 10:51AM
Another great one......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z7lN7nQjG0

This one struck me mostly as:
Trump?! You say we shouldn't have muslims here?! My muslim son died for you serving this country, MFer!


To contrast, what really struck me with the other one was that it acknowledged the petty things going on, but the point and the aim was something so much bigger. It has some small things in it, such as the NRA, but the focus is moving past them for a better country.

It's so easy to disagree, to tear down, and to say something is wrong. Event to use a noble thing to point highlight a negative as the speech above.

But it'd be kinda nice to hear what we should strive for. A direction and purpose.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jul 29, 2016, 11:31AM
Amen to that.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Aug 05, 2016, 05:59AM
Onward.......

THe Harvard Club

The American public starts to tune in to the Presidential election after the parties hold their conventions. The fact Americans are starting to pay attention explains the cratering going on with the Trump campaign.

Trump won a plurality of the votes in GOP primaries by appealing to the angry white voters at the far fringe of the Republican Party. The 13million votes he garnered in the primary process was close to the ceiling his hate filled rhetoric can attract amongst the general population.

Many Republicans are expressing buyer’s remorse over their nominee, many withdrawing their support, and more than a few declaring they will vote for Hillary Clinton. Polls currently show Clinton with a double digit lead, larger than any lead Obama ever held over McCain or Romney.

The most accurate commentary I have seen on the Trump “phenomena” was a letter from the Harvard Republican Club explaining why “for the first time in 128 years, we, the oldest College Republicans chapter in the nation, will not be endorsing the Republican nominee.”

It is a piece written as well as one would expect from Harvard students. I highly recommend a “google” to read it in its entirety. Here is the most accurately descriptive paragraph from it;
“Donald Trump is a threat to the survival of the Republic. His authoritarian tendencies and flirtations with fascism are unparalleled in the history of our democracy. He hopes to divide us by race, by class, and by religion, instilling enough fear and anxiety to propel himself to the White House. He is looking to to pit neighbor against neighbor, friend against friend, American against American. We will not stand for this vitriolic rhetoric that is poisoning our country and our children.”

What I find sadly fascinating is the fact the anger of the blue collar, uneducated whites who make up Trump’s base is completely misdirected. They are angry they are being displaced in our society, but they are directing the blame in the wrong direction.

Actually, that is only half true. The obvious focus of their anger is immigrants, Muslims, and other social groups who they blame for their displacement. But, Trump is also proof that, at least subconsciously, they recognize It is the GOP establishment that has let them down.

The real target of their anger should be the 35 years of failed “trickle down” economics the GOP has inflicted on this country.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Aug 11, 2016, 07:21PM
This week's column:

Right Track/ Wrong Track

President O’bama’s favorability ratings are nearing an all time high.  Those on the right are attempting to deflect that positive energy by pointing out 70% or so of the population feel the country is moving in the wrong direction.

And, that is absolutely true. I don’t disagree with them even a little. That said, I think folks might want to look at that fact with a little deeper cogitation and open eyes.

In 2010, the billionaires who (used to) pull the strings in the GOP hit upon an absolutely brilliant political strategy. They harnessed the anger and disillusionment a huge portion of their base was experiencing because of their 30 years of failed “trickle-down” economic policies and channeled it against the newly elected President, who just happened to be black.

They then spent vast amounts of money to win elections down the ballot in Governorships and State legislatures around the country. It resulted in the most successful elections for the GOP since the run-up to their Great Depression.

The GOP has controlled BOTH houses of the US Congress since 2010. They have also controlled both Houses of State legislatures in more than half of the States, and currently hold 31 Governorships. If you’re looking for why this country is going in the wrong direction, you need look no further than right there.

The GOP has never learned it is not enough to win elections. Once you win them, you then have to actually govern. The GOP is not particularly good at governing.

There are multiple examples of that fact, our own State being a not-so shining example, but the most illuminating is Kansas. If you read this column regularly you are familiar with the economic crater Gov. Sam Brownback and his TEA Party cabal have imploded in the nations heartland.

Donald Trump being the nominee of the GOP is proof their base gets their policies have failed, and that they want another option. But Trump is a disaster, and not an answer, even though they are not capable of seeing it, to their anger and frustration.

The good folks in Kansas have started opening their eyes and their minds. In their primaries last week, 14 Conservative legislators aligned with Brownback lost their primaries, and another seven were replaced when they chose not to run again.

You want this country back on the right track, that kind of voting is needed.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: brucejackson on Aug 16, 2016, 07:53AM
I grew up in a rock ribbed dyed in wool Republican family.  I considered myself a Republican until my mid-20's.  The Republican party has been in a downward spiral for a long time.  In the 1960's the Republican party realized that by opposing civil rights for blacks that they could pick up the votes of Southern conservatives who historically voted Democrat. Yes, the GOP lost a lot of voters by opposing civil rights but for every vote they lost they gained 5 Southern conservative voters.  Fundamentalist Evangelical Christians historically eschewed politics but in the 1980's when the Moral Majority pushed them to become involved politically the GOP welcomed them with open arms adopting Moral Majority positions supporting school vouchers that could be used in parochial schools, school prayer, a constitutional amendment making abortion illegal, censoring sex and violence in media and opposing sex ed.  In the 10's when angry white men envious of the gains of minorities and women were prodded into action by the election of the first black president the GOP welcomed them with open arms.  Now that the GOP is full of racists, religious fanatics and nativists they are surprised the party of Lincoln has elected a nut-job like Trump?  They brought this all on themselves.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Aug 16, 2016, 03:37PM
In another thread DD shared a link which includes "the left has failed to learn"...
In a quote from the article the author blames, in part, the decline of the American education system.

Old fart story: In 1999 I gave my brother in law, the computer chip designer, a slide rule for Christmas. I said he could use it to design the new computers after Y2K destroyed the current batch. He in his gEEky* way took it to work where his boss saw it. "I had one of those. At UCBerkly that was the sign you were a serious engineer."

Then it hit me. That year Bill Gates had been lobbying for more H2 visas as he couldn't hire enough qualified engineers in the US. A generation after my brother in law's boss graduated there was a shortage of engineers. When he had gone to UCB instate tuition was free. He and many of the engineers that founded Silicon Valley had paid no tuition and had no student loans to pay off

What happened? Ronald Reagan and the Prop.13 tax revolt. Tuition costs soared at state universities. Public schools slashed programs. Class sizes ballooned. Good teachers left the state. Therefore more H2 visas are needed a generation later.

A generation later Sen. Sanders says 4 years of free college should be the norm.
The right says " It will never work. It can't happen here. It's communistic."

DD's author says the left doesn't learn. Based on Sen. Sanders successful campaign, the "left" and a large number of middle Americans have learned that the whole "Reaganomics, trickle down, Government is the problem, taxes are theft." band wagon is busted. It was a complete sham which made the rich richer and pushed the middle class down into the "working poor".

The right meanwhile is repeating the same Voo Doo incantations** and is chasing after a "reality TV" personality. When will they learn?

DRB
Seola Creek

* As the man says " you have to have E(electrical) E(ngineer) to spell Geek."
** This seems an insult to Voudon, which has more validity than current Republican doctrine but I'll let it go as it's an allusion to Geo1's comment on Reaganomics.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Aug 16, 2016, 03:44PM
Yup, except it was H1B visas which allow you to bring in foreign trained skilled workers because you can't find Americans.  Now they use H1B visas to bring in lower wage Indian and Malaysian programmers because they don't want to pay American programmers the going wage.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Aug 16, 2016, 05:40PM
Yup, except it was H1B visas which allow you to bring in foreign trained skilled workers because you can't find Americans.  Now they use H1B visas to bring in lower wage Indian and Malaysian programmers because they don't want to pay American programmers the going wage.
They also use them to bring indians stateside, train them, and then send them back to lead/run overseas teams.

More about low cost and desire not to train/grow anyone.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Aug 16, 2016, 08:03PM
Yup, except it was H1B visas which allow you to bring in foreign trained skilled workers because you can't find Americans.  Now they use H1B visas to bring in lower wage Indian and Malaysian programmers because they don't want to pay American programmers the going wage.
Yes. I was confusing H1B with the H1 flu virus. Hmmm not a bad match from the old subconscious.
Duff


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Aug 16, 2016, 08:42PM

DD's author says the left doesn't learn.

The left hasn't learned. They haven't learned that socialism. communism and progressivism don't work.

Check out Cuba and Venezuela. Just two examples close to home. Venezuela is sitting on one of the largest oil ponds, and look at the standard of living that it's citizens have.

Leftist thinks that trickle down means "hey all the rich folk won't give me any of their money". Leftist are d**b and s****d.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Aug 16, 2016, 09:32PM
... "hey all the rich folk won't give me any of their money". Leftist are d**b and s****d.



Yup.  We've learned that if you give the rich folks money they don't spend it.  Give the poor folks money and it gets spent and we all benefit.  We've learned this over the last 40 years.

Incidentally, Israel is also a socialist country, but you don't seem to have a problem with them.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Aug 16, 2016, 09:36PM
The left hasn't learned. They haven't learned that socialism. communism and progressivism don't work.

True enough. The leftists gave us Social Security and Medicare, and look how many GOP candidates oppose those programs today...

Quote
Leftist thinks that trickle down means "hey all the rich folk won't give me any of their money". Leftist are d**b and s****d.

You know, reading your posts makes me realize why you think American Thinker is well written. I would have been embarrassed to write the sentence quoted above when I was nine.

Go ahead and show any evidence at all that supply side economics works. Clinton and Bush cut taxes for years and the economy was in the toilet by the time Bush was done. You could call it the Brownbacking of America.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Aug 17, 2016, 10:38AM
ddickerson

As for your last line, when you reduce your argument to name calling you are admitting that you do not have a valid comment to make. You're just blowing smoke.

As I mentioned to you previously I don't identify as a leftist. I am a Christian. I don't put any faith or belief in any political system. I look at the consonance of their outcomes with Christian teachings.

A:"The left hasn't learned. They haven't learned that socialism. communism and progressivism don't work."

B:"Check out Cuba and Venezuela. Just two examples close to home. Venezuela is sitting on one of the largest oil ponds, and look at the standard of living that it's citizens have."

A and B are a non sequitor. Those countries are both "one crop economies", sugar in the case of Cuba and oil in Venezuela. When the prices of those commodities fall their economies collapse. Both countries have had right wing and left wing governments and neither could manage the boom and bust cycle. Their current state of affairs is not a failure "communism, socialism or progressivism"

"Leftist thinks that trickle down means "hey all the rich folk won't give me any of their money"."

Reaganomics has proven to have a "trickle up" effect." Reagan's tax cuts and expanded military spending were funded by deficit spending. Government bonds were sold at a discount. It's basic economics that if you flood a market with a commodity the price of that commodity falls. The same is true with debt, flood the market with T bills and the value of the dollar falls. Look it up. There is a direct correspondence between the increase of US debt and the value of the dollar falling.

When the value of the dollar falls those who get their income from wages are less able to gain wealth. The prices of the goods they buy are driven up by the purchasing power of stronger currencies. More of their income goes to basics and less to accumulating wealth (buying a house, stocks or bonds).

When the value of the dollar falls those whose income is more from profits earned by equity (ownership of companies which sell goods on the global market) get wealthier.  Their profits increase as they pay wages in cheap dollars and sell goods at prices set by the strong currencies. They can afford to buy the basics and gain wealth by buying houses, stocks and bonds.

The result of Reaganomics is the poor and middle class are less able to give their children a better future. The amazing part is how the Republican party has cast itself as the party for the little guy at the same time their policies have hurt those people the most of all.



"Leftist are d**b and s****d."
Jn13:35: "In this thing all men shall know,
          that ye be my disciples,
          if he have love together."

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Aug 17, 2016, 11:57AM
I'm not going to defend Marxism, because it's not my thing.

But the logic of DD's argument is ridiculous. If I name two countries with capitalist economies that have landed on rough shoals, I wouldn't presume to have proved that capitalism is reliably a failure, or that capitalists 'haven't learned'.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Aug 17, 2016, 01:42PM
I'm not going to defend Marxism, because it's not my thing.

But the logic of DD's argument is ridiculous. If I name two countries with capitalist economies that have landed on rough shoals, I wouldn't presume to have proved that capitalism is reliably a failure, or that capitalists 'haven't learned'.

Sure, that's easy for you to say.
 
You understand how reason actually works.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Aug 17, 2016, 01:57PM
Okay guys, settle down.  No need to get snarky.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: brucejackson on Aug 17, 2016, 09:34PM
The left hasn't learned. They haven't learned that socialism. communism and progressivism don't work.

Check out Cuba and Venezuela. Just two examples close to home. Venezuela is sitting on one of the largest oil ponds, and look at the standard of living that it's citizens have.

Leftist thinks that trickle down means "hey all the rich folk won't give me any of their money". Leftist are d**b and s****d.

Look up Dutch Disease for a description of what happened to Venezuela.  If anything the economic collapse in Venezuela is an argument for a more actively managed economy rather than freer markets.

Almost every other industrialized nation is more socialized than the US is.  They are also doing better than us in a lot of ways.  Most of them have higher standards of living, cheaper education and health care, live longer, work less and have more vacation and enjoy greater socioeconomic mobility.  You heard the last one right.  It is easier to realize the American dream of working hard and doing better almost everyplace other than the US.  Americans work harder and longer and are more productive than ever but all the wealth created have gone to oligarcs.

I can remember when President Ford proposed cutting taxes for the wealthy.  He reasoned that what the economy needed was investment and poor people would just squander the extra money on food and necessities rather than invest it bvut cutting the taxes of people who didn't need it would cause it to be invested.  Everyone laughed at what a ridiculous idea this was.  A few years later President Reagan dusted off Ford's idea and called it "trickle down economics" and sold it to us.  He explained cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations would lead to an economic boom that would benefit everyone and that a rising tide lifts all ships.  After 40 years we are still waiting for money to tricke down;  wages have been stagnant or declining for all demographics except the wealthy and corporations.  The wealthiest percentile or two of Americans are making more money than ever but hasn't benefited anyone else.

I used to be a right winger myself.  Over the years life experiences taught me that all the premises that my conservative worldview was built on were not right.  There is hope for you.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Aug 17, 2016, 11:30PM
brucejackson, you're a quick learner, compared to some.

Your erstwhile right wing ideas were not unfounded, but ideas that are useful don't always serve well as dogma. I would say the same about left wing ideas.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Aug 18, 2016, 03:51AM
Speaking of how the left never learns...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/campaign-stops/the-path-to-prosperity-is-blue.html

interesting analysis of comparison of median income, life expectancy, taxation, patent rate, and college degree.


Deep red states are at the bottom in all categories.

Shouldn't they be continually at the top of at least 4 of those if their economic ideas are so great?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Aug 18, 2016, 10:21AM
Speaking of how the left never learns...

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/31/opinion/campaign-stops/the-path-to-prosperity-is-blue.html

interesting analysis of comparison of median income, life expectancy, taxation, patent rate, and college degree.


Deep red states are at the bottom in all categories.

Shouldn't they be continually at the top of at least 4 of those if their economic ideas are so great?

Yep, as DDickerson says, the left doesn't learn. All these decades of prosperity under Democratic governance and they still don't know it's not working.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Aug 19, 2016, 05:42AM
This week's column:

God Help Us

God, help us. I can’t wait until the slow-motion train wreck that is the Trump campaign is finally over and we can stop thinking about it. It’s not, so we can’t.

Among this week’s detritus was a “foreign policy” speech in which the demagogue who has based a year long campaign on hatred and bigotry claimed, “ those who support bigotry and hatred, will not be admitted for immigration into the country.” I guess he figures his base doesn’t need the competition?

He went on to suggest a possible rapprochement with Russia in the battle against ISIS in Syria. Vladimir Putin must do a “happy dance” when he hears Trump speak like that. He has played Trump like a Stradivarius in this campaign, prompting Bush’s Deputy Director of the CIA, Michael Morrell, to suggest  Putin “played on Mr. Trump’s vanities”……In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation,"

Further support of this theory can be found in the fact that Trump campaign manager, Paul Manafort, spent significant portions of recent years as a lobbyist for deposed Ukranian President Viktor Yanukovych’s party. He is a Putin puppet currently in political exile in Russia. It’s not difficult to envision Trump as lap-dog Tony Blair to Putin’s GW Bush.

Trump, finally recognizing the hole he has dug his campaign into, shook up his campaign staff this week, installing two extremely far right media people at the top. The plan appears to be they will “let Trump be Trump” rather than attempting to broaden his appeal to a wider swath of the electorate.

Trump believes the size and passion of the crowds he gets at his rallies is a better indication of the overall electorate than the plethora of scientifically administered polls which show him dropping like a stone. Well, you can get 10,000 screaming rednecks to show up for a tractor pull or a WWE event in Orlando, but that doesn’t mean the vast majority of the populous has any interest in them.

In the biggest joke of the week, Trump issued an apology, saying, “"Sometimes, in the heat of debate, and speaking on a multitude of issues, you don’t choose the right words or you say the wrong thing. I have done that, and believe it or not I regret it".

Anybody interested in buying a bridge in Brooklyn?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Aug 19, 2016, 06:09AM
Yep, as DDickerson says, the left doesn't learn. All these decades of prosperity under Democratic governance and they still don't know it's not working.

Check Detroit for dundercrat prosperity. LOL!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Aug 19, 2016, 06:15AM
Check Detroit for dundercrat prosperity. LOL!

So one city suffering under changes it couldn't control... Ok. Trying to say the exception proves the rule?


So what are Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, etc? Because their economies suck and have sucked for a while with abysmal stats, and well, they ARE the rule.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: brucejackson on Aug 19, 2016, 07:09AM
brucejackson, you're a quick learner, compared to some.

Your erstwhile right wing ideas were not unfounded, but ideas that are useful don't always serve well as dogma. I would say the same about left wing ideas.

I consider myself a pragmatist over all.  There are good ideas from the left and from the right.  In my experience most systems that actually work have a combination of competitive and cooperative elements.  E.g. A competitive marketplace with robust rules against monopolies, deceptive advertising, price fixing etc.  I also don't think that free trade is necessarily fair trade.  Companies that move to tax havens, operate where they don't have to pay employees a living wage or someplace where they can pollute with impunity should face tariffs so our own companies that play by the rules can compete.  There is this myth of the efficient market.  This idea is that the "free market" so so efficient that it will outperform managed markets and will eventually right all wrongs.  Anyone who has been paying attention to what the last 40 years of deregulation has produced should no longer believe this myth but doctrinaire ideologues still cling to this conservative premise.

I don't think my views are really extreme left but the country as a whole has moved so far to the right that I find myself not only to the left of my old Republican party but now I'm to the left of most of the Democratic party.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Aug 19, 2016, 08:08AM
Check Detroit for dundercrat prosperity. LOL!


You saw the chart, buddy. Learn to lose.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Aug 19, 2016, 08:10AM

You saw the chart, buddy. Learn to lose..

Just like Trump, he never loses; the contest is rigged. :razz:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Aug 19, 2016, 08:18AM
So one city suffering under changes it couldn't control... Ok. Trying to say the exception proves the rule?

So what are Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, West Virginia, etc? Because their economies suck and have sucked for a while with abysmal stats, and well, they ARE the rule.

Well, sure. DDickerson's case is so weak he had to pick a city rather than a state. If your political philosophy is so unhinged and morally bankrupt that it's nearly a reliable predictor of failure for the states where it's practiced, you have to do some serious cherry-picking.

The chart tells the tale. To be fair, there's a mixed causal relationship in that chart. In other words, it's not just that bad governance produces bad results--it's that having a boneheaded, non-fact-based political philosophy attracts most of the stupid people and stupid states, and they run down down your stats. By some wild coincidence, people who have a couple years of college under their belt, a few dollars in their pocket and a few ideas of their own don't want to be governed by people who think the universe is 6.000 years old.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Aug 20, 2016, 05:24AM
the last 40 years of deregulation

You couldn't possibly be referring to the USA.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Aug 20, 2016, 05:25AM
Well, sure. DDickerson's case is so weak he had to pick a city rather than a state. If your political philosophy is so unhinged and morally bankrupt that it's nearly a reliable predictor of failure for the states where it's practiced, you have to do some serious cherry-picking.

The chart tells the tale. To be fair, there's a mixed causal relationship in that chart. In other words, it's not just that bad governance produces bad results--it's that having a boneheaded, non-fact-based political philosophy attracts most of the stupid people and stupid states, and they run down down your stats. By some wild coincidence, people who have a couple years of college under their belt, a few dollars in their pocket and a few ideas of their own don't want to be governed by people who think the universe is 6.000 years old.

I was being kind.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Aug 20, 2016, 10:00AM
I was being kind.

You have to admit that your answer was kind of funny. Faced with plain, graphic evidence that GOP governance correlates with a poor and undereducated populace, your best rejoinder was to name one city, and it's in a state with a GOP governor.

In all fairness, the chart doesn't prove that actual GOP policies make people poor and stupid. It could as easily be that being stupid causes people to be poor and to vote for Republicans.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: brucejackson on Aug 22, 2016, 08:30AM
You couldn't possibly be referring to the USA.

Savings & Loan, airlines, electricity and sub-prime mortgages are examples of deregulation leading to mostly negative results.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Aug 26, 2016, 05:12AM
Another week, another column......

Getting Better
The recovery from the GOP manifested financial collapse and “Great Recession” of 2008 has been long and slow. Signs continue to appear showing it is healthy and enduring. You won’t hear much about that from the “doom and gloomer’s” on the right.

Second quarter statistics from the Dept. of Labor show that weekly wages for workers in the bottom quarter of the labor market grew at the fastest rate since 2009, up 3.1% over the previous year, and outpaced the gains of those above them on the income ladder.

The reasons behind this gain are diverse. Much of it is the result of a tightening labor market. Unemployment has been at, or below, 5% this entire year, and the pool of available workers is at a 15 year low.

Those are the factors being touted by the massive corporations driving the increases. Citing savings in hiring and training costs due to reduced turnover, Nationwide Mutual Insurance CAO said, “We knew our associates could walk out the door and find a job tomorrow.” Those factors are only one side of the equation. Those on the right would prefer you not think about the other side.

I’m going to give a “Uuge” portion of the credit for this improvement at the bottom of the ladder to the efforts of those workers to speak with a unified voice, and to the campaign for the Presidency of Bernie Sanders. Walkouts by fast food workers in the fall of last year, and the concerted push of the Sanders campaign, and his progressive movement, for a nationwide $15 minimum wage have scared the corporate world into doing better by their workers.

 That said, there is still a long way to go before the horrific income disparity in this country is rectified. The success of the walkouts show, as they did in the 1930’s after the last Great GOP Depression, the strength and power workers can exert when they are organized and standing together.

The National Labor Relations Act of 1935 guaranteed workers the right to organize and bargain collectively. Republicans have been fighting to limit or overturn that act since the day it was passed. They have succeeded to a great degree. Unions in this country are the weakest they have been in over a century.

Unions built our middle class, and our youth recognize that. It helps explain the why so many “Feel the Bern.”


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Sep 02, 2016, 05:44AM
A new week, a new column;

A Smoking Gun

There’s an old, bawdy joke that goes like this;
A gentleman asks a beautiful lady if she would spend the night with him for $10 Million. The lady says she would do just about anything for $10 million. The gentleman then asks if she would spend the night with him for $10. The lady responds, “of course, not. What do you think I am?” The gentleman replies, “We’ve already determined that, now we’re just haggling over price”.

It would appear the price for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi was $25,000. That is the amount she, through her campaign, solicited and accepted from Donald Trump to drop a Florida investigation into his fraudulent Trump University.

Right now, the “great, right-wing, conspiracy machine” is in high gear grinding out allegations of improper “pay-to-play” activities by the Clinton Foundation while Hillary Clinton was serving as the Secretary of State. As with all the other witch hunts, kangaroo courts, and tin-foil hat conspiracies of the last 25 years, there is no indication what-so-ever that any donations made to the Foundation resulted in a quid-pro-quo from Clinton’s State Dept.

That same claim cannot be made with a straight face about the $25,000 the Trump Foundation illegally funneled to Bondi. On Sept 13, 2013 it was reported in the Orlando Sentinel Bondi’s office was “reviewing” complaints about Trump University. Bondi’s political committee reported four days later receiving a $25,000 check from the Trump Foundation. In October, Bondi’s office announced it was closing the investigation and would not join NY’s AG in his suit against Trump.

That is a smoking gun, my friends. It is a text book example of “quid-pro-quo” and “pay-to-play”. It is, also, an amazing display of  irony, hypocrisy, and in-your-face chutzpah every time The Donald utters the phrase “crooked Hillary Clinton”.

Turns out that, not only was the “donation” an apparent bribe, it was also illegal. It is back in the news now because the Trump Foundation has paid a fine to the IRS because, as a non-profit, it is prohibited from making political contributions.

Donald Trump appears to have the ethics and integrity of a mob boss. His refusal to release his tax returns or to delineate the structure and extent of his indebtedness to Chinese and Russian banks and institutions should be disqualifying.

But then again, Tony Soprano was a hero to the reality TV crowd that makes up Trump’s base.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Sep 06, 2016, 08:52AM
Here's an interesting study sponsored by NASA. The study looked at civilisations which have collapsed and common features of their collapse.

The two biggies were ecological degradation and economic stratification into "elites", our 1%, and the plebes.
The excessive consumption by the 1% exceeds the capacity of the environment to supply all needs. The 99% who do the constructive work of the culture go into crisis, starvation or not enough time in the day to get the job done, and the civilization collapses.

DRB
Seola Creek
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/heres-how-nasa-thinks-society-will-collapse/441375/?utm_source=atlfb


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Sep 06, 2016, 09:47AM
Here's an interesting study sponsored by NASA. The study looked at civilisations which have collapsed and common features of their collapse.

The two biggies were ecological degradation and economic stratification into "elites", our 1%, and the plebes.
The excessive consumption by the 1% exceeds the capacity of the environment to supply all needs. The 99% who do the constructive work of the culture go into crisis, starvation or not enough time in the day to get the job done, and the civilization collapses.

DRB
Seola Creek
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/03/heres-how-nasa-thinks-society-will-collapse/441375/?utm_source=atlfb

Have to check and see if in any cases of collapse about 50% of the 99% were tacitly complicit in the 1%'s excessive corruption and their own destruction.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Sep 06, 2016, 10:23AM
Here's an interesting study sponsored by NASA. The study looked at civilisations which have collapsed and common features of their collapse.



Jared Diamond wrote a fascinating book called Collapse that details the fall of five civilizations.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Collapse-Societies-Choose-Fail-Survive/dp/0241958687

I highly recommend it.

IIRC he pointed mostly to ecological damage and resource depletion. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Sep 09, 2016, 06:17AM
Onward and .....well.......

Rubio

Although the Presidential race is dominating the atmosphere surrounding the upcoming elections, the battle for who will control the US Senate is equally important to the on-going success of the country. The national map favors the Democrats efforts to regain control, with Republicans having to defend 24 seats to the Dems 10.

Florida has the opportunity to play a significant role in the process of determining which party emerges victorious in that battle. As seems to be common practice here, the Dems are running a candidate with potentially fatal flaws in his resume, and faces an uphill battle in his race to unseat incumbent candidate Marco Rubio.

The fact it’s Rubio should be a strong positive in Patrick Murphy’s favor. During his Presidential run, Rubio made it clear he was not enamored of the role of a Senator.

One advisor stated that Rubio “hated” being a Senator. Rubio clarified, “I don’t know that ‘hate’ is the right word, I’m frustrated.”
Rubio is a reed that shifts in whatever wind happens to be blowing, whose only motivation seems to be personal aggrandizement. His word is anything but his bond.

"I have only said like 10000 times I will be a private citizen in January". If only he meant what he said. His attendance and voting records in the Senate have been abysmal, even taking into account his Presidential run.

In a statement rated true by Politifact, Murphy said, "Sen. Rubio has the worst vote attendance record of any Florida senator in nearly 50 years." “I’m missing votes because I am leaving the Senate. I am not running for reelection.”

Well……… Of course his prevarication is not limited to his candidacy. On Donald Trump he made the following comments, among many others less suitable for public airing…….
“we cannot allow the party of Reagan to be taken over by a con man."

“He’s spent years sticking it to the working people.”

"There is a lunatic in North Korea with nuclear weapons, and some would say there's a lunatic trying to get hold of nuclear weapons in America."

“He is wholly unprepared to be president of the United States.”

All those things said, Rubio is now endorsing the “Con Man” ”lunatic”. He is running to keep a job he doesn’t like and isn’t conscientious about performing.

Patrick Murphy is flawed, but he is far preferable to the empty suit he is running against.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Sep 16, 2016, 01:58AM
THis week's column:

Trump's Taxes

40+% of the American people are falling for a con. Donald Trump is taking the righteous anger of a large segment of the population, abused by the powers that be, and using it in an attempt usurp the most powerful, important position in the world. He might just get away with it.

Every card sharp or huckster has a “tell”, a mannerism or ‘tic” that gives away their scam. Trump’s “tell”s are legion, but none are more obvious or egregious than the sleight of hand he is performing around his medical and tax records.

The Donald certainly seems healthy enough to assume the Presidency, but he has refused to release his full medical records. He did go on reality TV this week and reveal the results of a basic physical to “Dr. Oz”. The lab results seem to show a healthy, 70 year old male who is a bit overweight.

Of the tests Trump said, “I did every test. I did it last week, and the samples all came back and I guess I wouldn’t be talking to you right now if they were bad. If they were bad, I would say let’s sort of skip this, right?” Which brings us to the tax returns…….

Since entering the race, Trump has said he cannot release his tax returns because he is under audit. The IRS, many tax attorneys and accountants, along with history prove the lie of this stance. Richard Nixon, the first American Presidential candidate to release his tax returns, was under audit when he did so.

Well, the audit has nothing to do with the refusal to release the tax returns. Donald Jr. just let the cat out of the bag in an interview with the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. The real reason is, "Because he's got a 12,000-page tax return that would create … financial auditors out of every person in the country asking questions that would distract from (his father's) main message."

Trump’s “main message” is “The racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, Islamophobic — you name it" (Hillary Clinton) themes his campaign has been built on. There is no doubt that questions about the ties and indebtedness to Russia and/or China, the lack of charitable giving, and avoidance of paying taxes in his returns might be a distraction from that agenda.

“If they were bad, I would say let’s sort of skip this, right?”

“Keep your eyes on the shiny object”.

Got it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Sep 20, 2016, 09:42AM
Here's a topic to consider.
  http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2004/10/florida-election-2000
Florida has a re-publi-con Governor again.
I think the results will be suspect but the "voting fraud" legislation will make it harder to see what's going on.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Sep 23, 2016, 06:57AM
Posting from Bali for the next three weeks.....

Zhirinovsky

Once again I am blessed to find myself writing this column from half a world away. Breakfasting under the watchful eyes of a troop of Macaques, looking out across an ocean that does not touch American shores, it is easy to forget the ugliness and stupidity that is characterizing this election season back home.

Well, until I tell a fellow traveler where I am from. It seems everyone around the world is tuned into our elections, and though diverse, their opinions are much the same. Leave to an Aussie to sum it up most succinctly; "Have you bloody Yanks lost your minds"?There's really no good answer to that question.

I did have an interesting discussion with a young couple from Kazak, a town about 700 miles east of Moscow. I asked their opinion of their President, Vladimir Putin. They said the Russian people feel "safe" with him as their leader. I told them we in the west think he is a thug who stole the election that put him in power. They replied, "Of course he did, that's how things work in Russia". They went on to explain that was ok, because as bad as Putin is, the people who were running against him were even worse.

I asked what they thought of our President. They expressed disappointment he had not achieved the promise they saw in him when he was elected. I explained our Presidency is not like theirs. Our President can't just do what he wants, or fire anyone who doesn't agree with him, but that President Obama has had a very successful Presidency in spite of being obstructed at every turn.

I then turned to our election and asked what they thought of Hillary Clinton. They confessed they knew very little about Hillary and that they see little about her in their media. They realize they hear only what their government wants them to hear, and it is frequently quite different from what the ever increasing number of Russians who now travel abroad report on returning home.

This was not true about Trump. They actually laughed out loud when I asked about him. "He is your Zhirinovsky". I had to google him to remember he is the ultra-nationalist "Clown Prince of Russian politics". Among his more ludicrous suggestions are that Russia build a wall, ban Muslims, and nuke Washington, DC. Yep, sounds like our guy all right.

So, have we lost our bloody minds?

Sent from my iPad


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Sep 30, 2016, 06:59AM
Still writing from Bali.....

Even a broken clock......

The first Presidential debate of this cycle is now in the books, and the consensus is that Hillary Clinton trumped “The Donald” fairly decisively. I listened to a replay days later, and have to believe the fact checkers Hillary kept referring to must have collected some serious overtime pay working to keep up with Trump’s  performance.

 

“The Donald” did hit on one major truth in his stumbling rambles. He claimed our infrastructure has been reduced to third world status from 40 years (it’s actually closer to 35) of neglect. He continued his “broken clock” (right twice a day) consistency by reminding us that in that same period we have run up $20Trillion in debt.

 

What he, and a large majority of Americans, fail/ refuse to understand is why that is true. Trump says it is his plan to grant the “largest tax break since Reagan”. It boggles mind how so few really smart people are so incapable of connecting the dots between these two concepts.

 

Before the Reagan tax cuts, we, as a society, took a significant portion of our GDP right off the top, through the tax code, and reinvested it back into our economy. We used that portion of out GDP to build the infrastructure that was the envy of the world. Our roads, bridges, hospitals, airports, electric grids, etc., etc., etc. were decades ahead of anything the rest of the world could equal.

 

At the same time, we were paying down the debts incurred fighting major wars in WWII, Korea, and VietNam. We accomplished this without running institutionalized deficits or adding to existing debt.

 

Then, along came Reagan. His tax cuts took that portion of our GDP we were using to lead the world in virtually any category you might care to mention and put it directly into the pockets of those at the top of the food chain. Trump mentioned “Banana Republics” in his descriptions of our infrastructure, but failed to recognize that the income distribution he, and Reagan, champions is exactly what exists in, and defines a “Banana Republic”.

 

Reagan changed the United States from a “tax and spend” country that was the greatest creditor nation in the world and invested in itself to lead the world into the “borrow and spend” country that is the world’s greatest debtor nation and is falling ever further behind the rest of the world.

 

Trump wants to make it even worse.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Sep 30, 2016, 12:05PM
We're supposed to buy this because tax cuts reliably stimulate the economy. The fact that this is proved wrong year after year doesn't stop people (including Trump during the debate) from reasserting it. There's no evidence that this works, and plenty that it doesn't. Our adherence to this cockeyed theory has given us a deep recession, a tepid recovery and a massive debt.

Since it obviously doesn't work as advertised, why do these massive tax cuts continue to bury us in debt? Their purpose is save rich people money.

Anyone who doesn't believe it should look at the way the cuts are implemented. If you were trying to stimulate the economy, you'd naturally skew the benefits to middle and lower class people. That's because there are more of them, and they spend, by necessity, a higher percentage of their money, thus increasing demand and speed of money, increasing business income and creating jobs. Additionally, cutting taxes for the investment class rather than the spending class during a weak economy leads to too much investment money chasing too few legitimate opportunities, leading to the schemes and scams that came to fruition in 2008.

But that's not how the tax cuts are executed. On regular income taxes, the top marginal rates have been reduced over the years much more, by points or percentage, than the lowest rates. Top marginal tax rate during the Eisenhower administration was 90%.

And any attempt to make them fair and even is met with howls from the investment class. When Bush proposed the tax cuts that led to the 2008 (really 2007) recession, he made a point of saying they'd be fair and across the board. He boasted that he'd take millions of lower middle class workers off the tax rolls. Of course, this was immediately reneged upon, in concept, by the tax cutters, who starting complaining about the 47% and painting them as freeloaders who should have "skin in the game", bringing the bait-and-switch to its natural conclusion. The tax cuts were only meant to be for the rich.

But ordinary income taxes don't show the extent of the inequity in the tax cuts. Rich people don't just make more money--they make it in a different way, and tax law changes in recent years have predominantly favored those types of income.

Middle class people predominantly receive the majority of their income through 1040 taxes, and rich people have the ability to shift large parts of it to dividend and capital gains income. Capital gains have dropped 40% since Carter, from 25% to 15%. Not so long ago, capital gains were taxed at a higher rate than 1040 income. Another example is the carried interest deduction for hedge fund managers. They're able to pay the lower 'carried interest' rate on their sales commissions for investing other people's money, at no risk to themselves. Meanwhile, people of more modest means have to pay higher ordinary income tax on their sales commissions on cars or refrigerators.

Trump has proposed to make this inequity worse, by taxing income from LLCs at 15% instead of as ordinary income, which it is. There's no rational reason to do this--it's just another excuse to tax some people at a much lower rate than others, and it predominantly benefits people like Trump. It's hard to say how serious he is about it--speaking to a group of conservative deficit hawks, he said the cut was out of his plan; a few days later he included it in his proposals before a small business group.

In short, our tax structure greatly and increasingly favors the very wealthy, not for the purpose of improving the economy, but for the purpose of shifting the tax burden to the working class. The wealthy have been very effective at advocating for themselves, and they've persuaded a lot of stupid middle class people that if they do the same--advocate for their interests--it's 'class warfare'.

I will say this isn't the 'politics of envy' in my case, at least. I benefit from the current tax laws. I just don't think they're fair or productive.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Sep 30, 2016, 12:22PM
...

I will say this isn't the 'politics of envy' in my case, at least. I benefit from the current tax laws. I just don't think they're fair or productive.

Then according to Trump, you aren't "smart" :razz:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Sep 30, 2016, 12:26PM
Then according to Trump, you aren't "smart" :razz:

Well, I didn't say I pay more taxes than I have to. Just more than Trump.

Come to think of it, you're right.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Oct 14, 2016, 05:39AM
In a topic about opinion pieces and articles... Thought this one deserves some attention. One of the best and most comprehensive I've seen about the final aspects of this election.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/opinion/burning-down-the-house.html


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Oct 14, 2016, 05:36PM
Nice one!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Oct 21, 2016, 12:08AM
I came back from Bali with Dengue Fever. That crap SUCKS!!! First time in a couple of weeks I've had the strength to write a column. So.......

VOTE NO ON 1!!!!

Sooz and I cancelled our cable TV contract the better part of a decade ago. The only time I see network or cable channels anymore is when I go somewhere to watch sports. I rarely miss TV, and, after seeing the few political ads I’ve had to sit through since the start of this football season, that sentiment is not likely to change.

The ugliness and pettiness that have characterized this election season is distilled and concentrated in those ads. In almost all I have seen, negativity seems to be the preferred method for promotion of or against any electoral option. With one major exception.

I have seen several wonderfully saccharine advertisements lauding the wonders of solar energy and its place in Florida’s future. Watching these lollipops and roses scenarios one can not help but believe Amendment 1 is the best thing for Floridians since Ponce De Leon landed in St. Augustine.

Well, don’t believe it for an instant. It is a wolf in sheep’s clothing bought and paid for by the utility giants to protect their monopoly on the production of electricity. Supporters make two claims for the amendment.

The first is that it will Constitutionally guarantee Floridians the individual right to own solar equipment and produce their own solar energy. This is a right Floridians already have by statute, and enshrining it in the Constitution could potentially limit access for Floridians as the technologies evolve and become even more accessible.
Secondly, they say Amendment 1 would “allow state and local governments to prevent people who do not choose to produce solar energy from being required to subsidize it”. And, therein lies the rub. This is a bare faced attempt to enshrine in the Constitution the utility companies ability avoid the concept of “net-metering” which allows individuals who generate solar power to sell it back to the utilities or to other consumers.

The utility companies have donated and spent over $20Million in their attempts to get this Amendment onto the ballot and passed. The State Supreme Court split 4-3 on allowing the initiative onto the ballot, dissenting justices complaining about the misleading language in the Amendment.

Like the Trump for President campaign, not a single newspaper in the state has come out in favor of Amendment 1, while virtually all of them have editorialized against it. Amendment 1 is a horrendously bad idea for Florida.

VOTE NO ON 1!!!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Oct 27, 2016, 11:15PM
THanks to Doug Furr for the help on this one.

Solution vs. Problem

“The difficulty we have in discussing "abortion" is the identification of abortion as the problem, when, in actuality, it is the solution to the problem. The problem itself has long been identified with the euphemistic phrase "to terminate an unwanted pregnancy." The problem is "an unwanted pregnancy". The solution, vaguely referred to as "to terminate", is the unstated method, an abortion.
 
This misidentification of the solution as the problem serves the chattering classes, politicians and the media. Frustration over the never resolved problem leads to crowds divided into two emotionally opposed groups yelling and screaming at each other.
 
Politicians identify one or the other group as “”my base”, who they can then rely on to rally to the right phrase and re-elect them. The yelling and screaming is always good TV especially when a gory fetus or bombing victim is available. The status quo of no change is therefore job security for politicians and press. They all have a vested interest in mis-identifying and not solving the problem
 
Many have a problem with "abortion" because it has become so emotionally loaded by the frustration described above. But if you have a problem with abortion, it doesn't mean abortion is a problem in itself. When it comes down to it, I don't think an abortion is anyone's idea of a good time. I don't think that even the most die-hard pro-choice feminist  would say "I think I'm going to get pregnant so I can have an abortion. It would be such fun."
 
This is why arguing about abortion is so useless. We really are all in agreement about the tragic nature of an abortion.
 
On the other hand, if we correctly identify the problem as that "unwanted pregnancy" then we might come to a solution. When we eliminate the problem the undesirable solution will be virtually eliminated.”
 
Dead, spot on, Doug! This summation of the Pro-Choice/ Pro-life divide in this country could be applied to many of the problems and issues that face this country.  Sadly, this Presidential election shows how unlikely it is that potentiality will be recognized.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 28, 2016, 06:40AM
identify the problem as that "unwanted pregnancy" then we might come to a solution.

"unwanted pregnancy" does not justify murder. The fact that so many people think it does is a bigly problem.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 28, 2016, 08:48AM
"unwanted pregnancy" does not justify murder. The fact that so many people think it does is a bigly problem.

Here we go again ;)

OK, Mr. No Murder, what do we do with an unwanted pregnancy?  Like maybe your own daughter who is still in High School?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Oct 28, 2016, 09:39AM
"unwanted pregnancy" does not justify murder. The fact that so many people think it does is a bigly problem.

The SCOTUS has determined that it is none of your freakin' business, one way or the other.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Bruce the budgie on Oct 28, 2016, 10:15AM
I grew up in the US and other corners of the world in a time when birth control was forbidden in wide swathes of society, and condoms were sold "only for disease prevention." There are some folks still walking and talking who consider contraception to be cutting off a human life in defiance of a divine plan, and in some degree equivalent to murder. (To be clear, I think those folks are misguided.)

Anecdotally, I have known two women who each terminated a pregnancy, the results of rape. One of them was able to confide in her mom, who got her on a train to a place where back-alley abortions could be found, in reasonably safe circumstances. Another woman was overseas at the time of the assault, and had the rapist's zygote expunged in a well-equipped modern hospital, without her parents' knowledge. She was an adult, but knew her father's views on the matter, and considered it none of his business.

The infuriating part is when two conjoined lives are at risk, and religious doctrine overrules prudent medical practice, leading to the loss of both. That may be an edge case, but it happens.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Oct 29, 2016, 10:20AM
"unwanted pregnancy" does not justify murder. The fact that so many people think it does is a bigly problem.

Sorry DD but you miss my point.
Prohibition didn't work for booze and hasn't worked for abortions. Going down that road is a waste of time.

If you want to make a real change start by examining that phrase "unwanted pregnancy".
How does that happen? I think we all have a basic idea how pregnancy happens so if that process is understood how does it happen that an "unwanted" pregnancy occurs?

The facts are on the table so how does it happen that a woman ends up in a situation in which she wouldn't choose to be? If she wouldn't choose to become pregnant then where along the pathway of decisions leading to pregnancy was a decision made which was contrary to her will. (With free will comes it's evil twin sin which is an issue between the sinner and her god. What I'm trying to examine is where you or I as men can work to reduce the number of abortions.*)

So where in that decision tree does it happen that a woman makes a choice the outcome of which she does not want and at what point can a man make a decision which would avoid that unwanted outcome?

Let's start off with the birds and the bees. To make an informed choice a woman needs information. We can reduce abortions by making sure she has free access to information about sex and contraception. (There is a gap in the numbers between the average 2 child family and the average american having sex once per week. That's about a 1:1000 ratio so something is happening and its called contraception. So let's not be hypocritics and deny anyone access to contrception.**)

There's also "No means No." We can see that a woman has the absolute right to say no to sex by teaching younger men to accept this. Emotional blackmail such as "You would if you really loved me." "I don't like the feel of condoms." "I'm your husband. It's your duty." etc. are all unmanly BS.

There are other decision points along that path where we can provide positive support for women instead of wasting our time trying to control a woman's decision after she has already unwantedly become pregnant.

Duff
Seola Creek

*In a somewhat facetious way I think men should be allowed an opinion on "abortion" after we have "missed our period".

**Jesus is big on forgiving sinners but is hell on hypocrits.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 29, 2016, 10:38AM
Great post, Doug.

For the record, most abortions are in the first or second month of pregnancy.  A 1 month old embryo is about the size of a grain of rice and looks like this (courtesy WebMD):

(http://img.webmd.com/dtmcms/live/webmd/consumer_assets/site_images/articles/health_and_medical_reference/womens_health/Pregnancy_Your_Babys_Growth_and_Development_Months_1_to_3_-_End_of_First_Month.jpg)

It certainly doesn't look much like a baby yet.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 29, 2016, 01:22PM
Women choose to have abortions because they don't want to have a baby, not because they are trying to cut out a tumor or blob of cells.

So, everyone knows that abortions kill unborn babies. Now, the question becomes, are you Ok with that? Apparently for a lot of people, they are.

I don't know why.  :dontknow:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 29, 2016, 01:38PM
Those with the integrity and courage to take honesty seriously aren't so false and intellectually depraved as to impose their framework upon those who disagree with them, but dogmatism and the intellectual cowardice that enables it does allow for the high degree of dishonesty required to do so--at least persistently. Those who do so deserve zero respect when talking about issues on which their sense of honesty (such as it may be) fails them so completely. Often in such cases, unfortunately, that's most of what they talk about. 
 
Oddly though, in the Interweb such people (rather, personas) are lavished with attention, which obviously has a lot to do with the nature of the social climate online. It's what you get when such people are given a plainly undeserved podium from which to spread their nastiness.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Oct 29, 2016, 01:54PM
No such thing as an unborn baby.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 29, 2016, 08:43PM
No such thing as an unborn baby.


Here we go again......Denying life in the womb.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 29, 2016, 09:12PM
He's really not aware that he freely changes terms and parameters and contexts and all that sort of thing--that he can't maintain a causal chain for more than a single link. He genuinely just doesn't know better. He's the personification of Dunning-Kruger ... he's DK Man. Either that or, more likely, DK Man is really a persona--created to score lulz on marks.
 
So the thing is ... everyone must know this but DK Man, and DK Man's not able to learn it--it's a definitive characteristic, perhaps the definitive characteristic--what it means to be DK Man. So there's no point in addressing DK Man or attempting to correct him--by making the attempt you're either endeavoring to polish a dookie, or you're just playing the very game the persona has clearly been created to manipulate you into playing.
 
Is this somehow really not as obvious to everyone else in here as it is to me?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Oct 30, 2016, 10:44AM
ddickerson
"Women choose to have abortions because they don't want to have a baby, not because they are trying to cut out a tumor or blob of cells."

OK, So like I said in my post, which Russ put up here as a topic, what can we do about this situation in which women find themselves  unwantedly pregnant?
Telling them what they should and shouldn't do won't work.*
Banning legal abortions will force despirate women to have illegal abortions. This is what happened before Roe v. Wade and will happen if it is overturned.
Arguing with people in on line forums won't decrease the number of abortions.
So which way do we turn?

"So, everyone knows that abortions kill unborn babies. Now, the question becomes, are you Ok with that?"

No I'm not. Nor am I in favor of returning to the failed prohibition model of the past.

"Apparently for a lot of people, they are."

There's the old saying which I've heard credited to both the Army and the Navy "The way to spell 'assume' is to make an Ass of U and Me." Ass-U-Me get it? Where, in this forum do  "a lot of people" say they are OK with abortion?  It's a false assumption to equate being "pro-choice" with being "Pro-abortion".

I classify myself as "Pro-Choice", "Pro-life" and "Anti-abortion"
Pro-choice in that women should be autonomous in their own bodies and free to make choices about their sexuality and reproduction.
Pro-life in that I enjoy being alive and enjoy seeing children loving life.
Anti-abortion in that it is a desperate action which is a desperate choice for a woman to make. I see that the way to get rid of this choice lies only in having a culture which gives women a better series of choices, The fact being that if a woman gets to the point of choosing to have an abortion is a demonstration that we as a society have failed to give her a better series of choices and by merit of our failing we need to shut up and support the women who find themselves in this position.

*Have you noticed how many women are taking part in this discussion? This says something about how effective this discussion is. It's just a bunch of guys sitting over their keyboards arguing  about what they think women should do.

So I don't doubt that this will continue 'cuz it is fun to rant on in meaningless arguementation. Although you have to own up to the fact that this produces no change or action in our culture other than elevated blood pressures,

As this interchange continues remember that what you are doing is only for entertanment purposes and as I said in my original post, just supports the paralysis of our country in resolving important issues and the only ones who gain from this are the politicians and media who are sustained by this paralysis.

Duff
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Oct 30, 2016, 12:25PM
So, does posting your opinion as pro choice also fall under the category of entertainment only too?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Oct 30, 2016, 01:13PM
So, does posting your opinion as pro choice also fall under the category of entertainment only too?

No.

As an American I see being "Pro-choice" as a part of the freedom of choice which is key to all the "life liberty and the pursuit of happiness" principles that are the foundation of our country.

The entertainment part is writing out my thoughts about how these pointless arguements, here on the forum or in the poltical arena, which solve nothing except supporting the control of our country by the permanent political and media establishments.

The fact is my comments recieve a "that's nice" sort of compliment and then folks go right back to the same polarized arguementation. So when I write a post it's clear to me that it's 90% for my own entertainment.

Happy Sunday
Duff



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Oct 30, 2016, 05:43PM
Hate to break it to you Doug, being pro-choice is being pro-abortion. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 30, 2016, 05:51PM
Hate to break it to you Doug, being pro-choice is being pro-abortion.

Pretending not to understand isn't the same as actually not understanding, and you're not fooling anyone with the idea that you don't understand the actual point that was made, particularly since it was made so clearly ... and obstinance just raises distasteful questions.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Oct 30, 2016, 05:56PM
No Byron, I understand completely.  To be pro-choice is to be in favor of abortion.  To pretend other wise is so much BS. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 30, 2016, 06:04PM
No Byron, I understand completely.  To be pro-choice is to be in favor of abortion.  To pretend other wise is so much BS.

Well, you know better and I'm pretty sure everyone not playing the same selective reasoning game knows it (i.e. you are in fact, able to distinguish between an action or behavior and imposing upon an action or behavior, again as Douglas clearly explained), but I'm not sure there's any point in 'splaining it or attempting to engage you in a genuine discussion about it.
 
To put it diplomatically I strongly suspect you're presuming your religious views trump any and all contrary religious views of others, but it's not a unanimous Christian (Protestant or Catholic) position, so you're actually going to have to take personal responsibility for your position in discussion.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: growlerbox on Oct 30, 2016, 07:13PM
No Byron, I understand completely.  To be pro-choice is to be in favor of abortion.  To pretend other wise is so much BS. 

What an absurd thing to say.  What could it possibly mean, that someone who declares themselves to be pro-choice is anti-birth, anti-child?  Surely the most that could be said is that such a person is neutral or ambivalent with respect to abortion.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Oct 30, 2016, 07:23PM
You truly have no idea of what the terms you are using mean.  Someone who is pro-choice supports a woman's right to have an abortion.  To be pro-abortion is to support a woman's right to abortion. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Oct 31, 2016, 01:55AM
You truly have no idea of what the terms you are using mean.  Someone who is pro-choice supports a woman's right to have an abortion.  To be pro-abortion is to support a woman's right to abortion. 

Yeah, funny how no one ever calls himself 'anti-choice' or 'anti-life.'



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 31, 2016, 04:54AM
Careful Billy ... you don't have a "fan club" backing you so much now, and you don't have an isolated target. In here it will just go down according to what happens when you make these kinds of arguments in the clear, as the cool Army kids say.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Oct 31, 2016, 05:19AM
Hate to break it to you Doug, being pro-choice is being pro-abortion. 

That is true.

But it does not follow that aborting an early fetus is murdering a baby.  That is a religious doctrine only, and only for specific religions.

A fertilized egg has no brain cells, skin cells, muscle cells, bone cells, or any other differentiated cells, and won't for many days. 

Can anyone explain a nonreligious reason why I should consider it equal to a living, breathing, cooing baby? 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 31, 2016, 06:15AM
That is true.
No, it isn't.
 
I was going to present these questions to Billy, but I think it'll be more productive to ask you:
Does someone who is pro-freedom of speech therefore support the white supremacist message (or whatever controversial speech is in question)?
 
If you support gay rights does that mean you're therefore pro-homosexuality? Because a lot of more churchified types are going to have some serious problems with that. Do you believe God is pro-sin? because it would seem he's pretty big on giving us the freedom to do so.
 
Doesn't this sense that support of the action allowed create some problems for the whole hate the sin but love the sinner schtick? If you inherently support the sin if you support the sinner, you can't follow this instruction.
 
But it does not follow that aborting an early fetus is murdering a baby.  That is a religious doctrine only, and only for specific religions.
It also ignores natural spontaneous abortion and how extremely common it is (in the system many believe was created by whatever god they believe in, making that god unavoidably responsible) ... not to mention the genocides and other atrocities of the OT (which strangely seem to be in-line with Bronze Age sentiments).


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Oct 31, 2016, 06:22AM
No, it isn't.
 
I was going to present these questions to Billy, but I think it'll be more productive to ask you:
Does someone who is pro-freedom of speech therefore support the white supremacist message (or whatever controversial speech is in question)?
 

I had not looked at it that way. 

I guess I would say that pro-freedom of speech supports the right to speak in favor of white supremacy but not institute white supremacy.

But pro-choice is more than speaking about abortion, it means access to legal abortion.  So I'm not sure the parallel is equivalent.  Maybe. 

It seems to me that the only possible way to consider abortion murder (as many here do) is to insist that a fertilized egg has a soul.  If they can prove that, I'll change my mind and agree with them.  Until they do that though, it remains a specific religious doctrine, and we are constitution bound not to favor any specific religion. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 31, 2016, 09:18AM
I had not looked at it that way. 

I guess I would say that pro-freedom of speech supports the right to speak in favor of white supremacy but not institute white supremacy.

But pro-choice is more than speaking about abortion, it means access to legal abortion.  So I'm not sure the parallel is equivalent.  Maybe.
This cuts to the fundamental nature of civil liberties. If we support civil liberties it doesn't require that we approve of all the options that implies. It's ultimately that simple. Advocating for the right to do something in no way even implies approval of the given activity.
 
The most obvious current example ... I would fight for Trump supporters' right to vote, and for believers' right to worship. I wholeheartedly support both of those rights in spite of all the harm they do or may do.
 
It seems to me that the only possible way to consider abortion murder (as many here do) is to insist that a fertilized egg has a soul.  If they can prove that, I'll change my mind and agree with them.  Until they do that though, it remains a specific religious doctrine, and we are constitution bound not to favor any specific religion.
I hate to keep disagreeing with someone who is generally a philosophical ally, but if proof of the possession of a soul is what's required to confirm personhood we're all screwed.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Oct 31, 2016, 10:46AM

The entertainment part is writing out my thoughts about how these pointless arguements, here on the forum or in the poltical arena, which solve nothing except supporting the control of our country by the permanent political and media establishments.

The fact is my comments recieve a "that's nice" sort of compliment and then folks go right back to the same polarized arguementation. So when I write a post it's clear to me that it's 90% for my own entertainment.

BCordova

You don't want to give me credit for being "Pro-life" and "Pro-choice" so how about my prophesying that the conversation would turn back to argumentation of the minutiae of abortion and that my basic thesis that our political paralysis in this country solves nothing except providing job security for the political and propaganda careerists would not be discussed?

Now for entertainment's sake...

I've always thought that the CIA backed junta which overthrew the Alliende government in Chile raised an interesting dilemma for US. If we support democracy and self determination and the people in a country elect "the wrong guy" shouldn't we accept this election as the "will of the people"?
Would you, in this case, say that because I supported democracy and self-determination and the people of Chile elected a socialist I was therefore "pro-socialist"?

How about the Christian dilemma of reconciling an omnipotent God who grants free will to people and doesn't intervene to prevent people from choosing to do evil? Does this mean that God being "pro free will" is therefore "pro evil"?

Your conclusion that because I said I was "Pro-choice" I was by default "Pro-life" is dubious.

What I was proposing was a path to eliminate the need for abortion by being radically "Pro-choice". I say we should give women a universe of choices so that they can avoid being unwantedly pregnant and solving that "problem" by abortion.

I think this would be a more useful approach to eliminating abortion than continue the polarized argumentation which promotes the status quo of political paralysis which does nothing to eliminate abortion.

Duff
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 31, 2016, 11:03AM
Doug, I think this is something a lot of us can agree upon.

I am certainly not pro  abortion.  I would rather see a baby born to a mother who wants it; or to be born to be given to a person who wants a baby but can't produce one on her own.

But I also feel that it's not my duty to tell a woman what to do with her own body when I have no interest in the result of the pregnancy (i.e. I am not a relative or the father).

As has been mentioned, there probably are very few women who casually go in for abortions.  It's against all they are hard wired to do.  It's certainly not fun.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Oct 31, 2016, 11:06AM

What I was proposing was a path to eliminate the need for abortion by being radically "Pro-choice". I say we should give women a universe of choices so that they can avoid being unwantedly pregnant and solving that "problem" by abortion.

The obvious problem with this solution is that there is one particular Christian denomination that sees all forms of contraception as being equally as sinful as abortion. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: growlerbox on Oct 31, 2016, 11:19AM
It's very simple really.  I see abortion as an unfortunate necessity in some cases, cases which very often cannot be determined as such beforehand.  I make no claim to be able to foresee all mitigating circumstances for all women, to whom I entrust the responsibility for making a difficult decision for themselves, with as much information and support as I can provide.

I do not support abortion.  I support choice.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Oct 31, 2016, 12:03PM
The obvious problem with this solution is that there is one particular Christian denomination that sees all forms of contraception as being equally as sinful as abortion. 

Tim
Thank God we have a strong tradition of separating church and state issues.
OOPS, before that topic becomes a greased pig careering through our conversation...

How do we get our neighbors who are strongly invested in their beliefs, religious and political, to see that for our country to escape our paralysis we need to find some common ground and HORRORS we may need to give up something.

It's like that old story about King Solomon and the contending women who both claim the same baby. Solomon says OK I'll cut it in half and you can both have a baby. The real mom realizes she'd rather lt the baby live wth the wrong family than die so she acquiesses to save its life and is thereby recognized as the true mom and receives her hearts desire.

This is ike my path to eliminating abortion by becoming radically Pro-choice. A vehement Pro-lifer would have to give in on a woman's right to choose an abortion in hope that by radically empowering her choices we eventually get to a place where no abortions are needed.

Turn about being fair play I would have to ask myself what I'd be willing to give up on single payer health insurance to acheive universal access to healthcare. I really don't know what that woould be but I think that like the issues around abortion we'd have to find some common ground that the status quo doesn't work. This would require giving up all the "Cheap thrills" of arguementation, those little adraniline rushes of yelling and name calling, blaming, smug self-satisfaction and scape-goating which are so fun yet addicting. Then we might be able to move from arguing to discussing, that civil and respectful exchange of ideas. From their we could build a consensus or if there is no consensus then agree that nothing cn be done.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 31, 2016, 12:11PM
It's like that old story about King Solomon and the contending women who both claim the same baby. Solomon says OK I'll cut it in half and you can both have a baby. The real mom realizes she'd rather lt the baby live wth the wrong family than die so she acquiesses to save its life and is thereby recognized as the true mom and receives her hearts desire.

Just a side note, but I've always thought, I mean since I was a small kid, that this was a ridiculous display of "wisdom" that was heavily dependent upon the author being kind to the "wise" man. I remember being scandalized over the idea that either woman would be anything but horrified, and the "test" would never work. I suppose maybe it's a Bronze Ager thing, but used as an example of wisdom it's really a sarcastic joke. As a kid I tried to understand what I was missing ... finally became okay with the obvious after a few years or so (not as if it was on my mind the whole time or anything).


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Oct 31, 2016, 12:13PM
I'm pro-choice, but I have to agree with DDickerson that some of the arguments made against restrictions on abortion aren't really valid.

If you view abortion as a crime, you have standing as a citizen to support laws that prevent it. So the idea that men shouldn't have control over women's behavior doesn't fly, any more than if it were used as an argument against women controlling sexual harassment and assault by men.

Likewise, the 'if you don't like abortion, don't have one' argument fails when it's applied to any other behavior. "If you don't like sexual harassment, don't harass anyone', or 'If you don't like assault, don't assault anyone.'

The fact that most abortions are spontaneous is no more valid than saying most deaths are natural, as a defense of murder. The fact that we call miscarriages 'spontaneous abortions' does not ameliorate the intentionality of clinical abortions, any more than we would absolve murderers if we started calling natural deaths 'spontaneous murders.'

The quarrel over abortion rests on the difference of opinion over whether there's a victim, which seems obviously true to some people, untrue to others. I think most people are ambivalent. But we shouldn't paper over those genuine moral differences with false certainties.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Oct 31, 2016, 12:21PM
I'm pro-choice, but I have to agree with DDickerson that some of the arguments made against restrictions on abortion aren't really valid.

If you view abortion as a crime, you have standing as a citizen to support laws that prevent it. So the idea that men shouldn't have control over women's behavior doesn't fly, any more than if it were used as an argument against women controlling sexual harassment and assault by men.

Likewise, the 'if you don't like abortion, don't have one' argument fails when it's applied to any other behavior. "If you don't like sexual harassment, don't harass anyone', or 'If you don't like assault, don't assault anyone.'

The fact that most abortions are spontaneous is no more valid than saying most deaths are natural, as a defense of murder. The fact that we call miscarriages 'spontaneous abortions' does not ameliorate the intentionality of clinical abortions, any more than we would absolve murderers if we started calling natural deaths 'spontaneous murders.'

The quarrel over abortion rests on the difference of opinion over whether there's a victim, which seems obviously true to some people, untrue to others. I think most people are ambivalent. But we shouldn't paper over those genuine moral differences with false certainties.

That comparison only works if you remove the viability of the fetus, and mostly the fact that the mother is also involved (just a little bit) and at risk.

People focus on th e"potential baby" and ignore the person carrying it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Oct 31, 2016, 12:32PM
That comparison only works if you remove the viability of the fetus, and mostly the fact that the mother is also involved (just a little bit) and at risk.

People focus on th e"potential baby" and ignore the person carrying it.

I understand the argument, but it gets complicated when someone besides the mother assaults, kills, or steals a fetus, as sometimes happens. I don't think concern for the 'potential baby' and concern for the mother are mutually exclusive, though they might be in conflict at times.

I guess it comes down to a philosophy of why we value life. As a non-religious person, that's different for me than for others.




Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 31, 2016, 12:36PM
The Roe vs. Wade decision was also based on viability.  Generally you need at least 5 months of gestation for a viable fetus (and at 5 months its barely viable).  Most abortions occur well before this period; the exceptions generally being when there is a severe birth defect or the health of the mother is at risk.

Note that a 2 month old embryo won't generate any usable body parts.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Oct 31, 2016, 12:37PM
I'm pro-choice, but I have to agree with DDickerson that some of the arguments made against restrictions on abortion aren't really valid.

If you view abortion as a crime, you have standing as a citizen to support laws that prevent it. So the idea that men shouldn't have control over women's behavior doesn't fly, any more than if it were used as an argument against women controlling sexual harassment and assault by men.

Likewise, the 'if you don't like abortion, don't have one' argument fails when it's applied to any other behavior. "If you don't like sexual harassment, don't harass anyone', or 'If you don't like assault, don't assault anyone.'

The fact that most abortions are spontaneous is no more valid than saying most deaths are natural, as a defense of murder. The fact that we call miscarriages 'spontaneous abortions' does not ameliorate the intentionality of clinical abortions, any more than we would absolve murderers if we started calling natural deaths 'spontaneous murders.'

The quarrel over abortion rests on the difference of opinion over whether there's a victim, which seems obviously true to some people, untrue to others. I think most people are ambivalent. But we shouldn't paper over those genuine moral differences with false certainties.
This is kind of my favorite thing about this issue. You can be on polar opposite sides of it and both still have a rational claim to the moral high ground.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Oct 31, 2016, 12:56PM
The Roe vs. Wade decision was also based on viability.  Generally you need at least 5 months of gestation for a viable fetus (and at 5 months its barely viable).  Most abortions occur well before this period; the exceptions generally being when there is a severe birth defect or the health of the mother is at risk.

Note that a 2 month old embryo won't generate any usable body parts.

You're playing 'small ball' here with the viability issue. Some people believe that life begins at conception, and that even if God aborts some of them (or even most of them), it's His job, not ours.

If someone attacks a pregnant woman and deliberately murders her unborn child, should we defend him because the fetus isn't viable, and confine the charges to the harm, perhaps minimal, sustained by the woman?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Oct 31, 2016, 01:22PM
The courts have established that an assault on a fetus (i.e. unwanted) can be considered intent to murder and murdering a fetus at whatever age is murder.  But we are talking about criminal intent.  An abortion is by consent of the mother and with the cooperation of the attending physician.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Oct 31, 2016, 01:31PM
The courts have established that an assault on a fetus (i.e. unwanted) can be considered intent to murder and murdering a fetus at whatever age is murder.  But we are talking about criminal intent.  An abortion is by consent of the mother and with the cooperation of the attending physician.

You're not addressing his point. It is logically inconsistent to claim that the same act is murder in one instance and not in the other.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Oct 31, 2016, 01:38PM
You're not addressing his point. It is logically inconsistent to claim that the same act is murder in one instance and not in the other.

That only applies to the pro-life position though.
 
It's inconsistent, and can be much more of an issue than that, to impose standards and assumptions upon others that they don't use themselves. If you can't find a problem with their actual position, that doesn't mean it's okay to create a problem for them. There are terms for that kind of thinking that I'll refrain from posting for diplomatic reasons.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Oct 31, 2016, 01:43PM
You're not addressing his point. It is logically inconsistent to claim that the same act is murder in one instance and not in the other.

So it's not criminal if I come to your house and cut down your prized Japanese maple without your permission, because it would be legal for you to do the same thing?

As you're saying, it's the same act, right?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Oct 31, 2016, 02:01PM
So it's not criminal if I come to your house and cut down your prized Japanese maple without your permission, because it would be legal for you to do the same thing?

As you're saying, it's the same act, right?

I was saying that Bruce wasn't addressing your point. But to yours, it's not a like comparison because people are not property.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Oct 31, 2016, 04:56PM
Only in some countries and in the U.S only 150 years ago, followed by repressive laws & customs that basically continued slavery for another 100 years


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Oct 31, 2016, 06:49PM
I was saying that Bruce wasn't addressing your point. But to yours, it's not a like comparison because people are not property.

You're right on both counts, possibly.

Bruce didn't meet my point because he's discussing legalities instead of merits. As to the 'personality' (in the plainest sense) of a fetus, that's the crux of this thing, right?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Oct 31, 2016, 09:13PM
THanks to Doug Furr for the help on this one.

Here's a do-over. I relized that I started the hare on this topic by uing as an example a topic on which our country is polarized. So I cut out my introduction and will insert another.

Political success is often determined by who determines the terms of the debate. I think "The Civil Rights Movement" hit a home run with that title. Previously the topic had been known by the title  "The Negro Problem". This successful shift from a problem that belonged to some one else to a "Movement" towards a common goal, "Civil Rights" was key to the movements success. It changed the discussion from some one else's problem to which whites could say "Not my problem." to the commonly held values which whites could see they had a stake in.

Nowadays that strategy has been turned on its head. The politicians of the status quo and the infotainment media have found there job security by manipulating our topics of discusion by misidentifying the terms of debate. They have specificly modeled these topics into irreconcilable opposites so that public debate becomes polarized.
The result is the perfect set up: topics are never resolved so the politicins can say every two years "I'm going to Washington to straighten out this mess." and be perpetully reelected;the people become frustrated and behave irrationally dependably whenever a hot button issue is brought up, whch is great TV. And both parties have got job security.   
 
This is politics in america today. Politicians identify with one or the other group of polarized citizens as “”my base”, who they can then rely on to rally to the right phrase and re-elect them. The yelling and screaming is always good TV. The status quo of no change is therefore the new normal for politicians and the press. They all have a vested interest in mis-identifying and not solving the problem.

The problem before us is how do we regain democracy and have a government which solves the real problems that we all face.
The stumbling block is that we are all habituated to rancor and arguement and are addicted to the cheap thrill and adrenaline high of arguementation. And like all good addicts we need to admit that we have a problem and that the one way to resolve it is to admit we are powerless to change the nature of our addiction and to give up on it and start relearning healthy social interactions.

(up past my bedtime and starting to lose the thread here so I'll let you chew on this nd try again in the morning.)

DUFF



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Nov 01, 2016, 03:25AM
Bruce didn't meet my point because he's discussing legalities instead of merits. As to the 'personality' (in the plainest sense) of a fetus, that's the crux of this thing, right?
Nope. Again, an embryo doesn't JUST become a fetus become a baby.

It grows inside a woman's body, living off of it and changing it and eventually exiting it in a process that ranges from excruciating to lethal.

Welcome to a bunch of guys thinking about babies.... they think about how they know them: 1) from a guy's perspective 2) as babies and not the host growth.

In short, quite limited, and generally unaware.


As noted before, the religious objections have only been around in recent history. Catholics made abortion an issue when women started demanding the right to own land and vote in Europe. Baptists made abortion an issue when feminists demanded to be judged on their own, and not as wives of men.

It isn't about the fetus and when it gets "personality". It's about enforcing a male view on women and society.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Bruce the budgie on Nov 01, 2016, 05:28AM
Prohibition is about cutting off supply, be it alcohol, heroin, or abortion. This is a major reason why prohibition fails. Effective harm reduction is more about reducing demand. According to William S. Burroughs, as long as there are junkies, junk will find its way to them.

Try to look past that unfortunate comparison, and observe the simple fact that where abortion is prohibited, it is driven out of view, into the infamous back alleys, where women have been mutilated, and died horrendously (and unnecessarily.) As others have said, it is not just about the babies.

Reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy, and BAM! problem solved. For example, give kids a sane education about sex instead of some hand waving about abstinence, and guess what? You already know the answer. Rape is a thornier problem, whose discussion typically generates a lot of heat. Anybody got some light to shed on that?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 01, 2016, 05:35AM
Nope. Again, an embryo doesn't JUST become a fetus become a baby.
Which takes us to ...   :sing:Every Sperm Is Sacred (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fUspLVStPbk)    :sing:
 
It grows inside a woman's body, living off of it and changing it and eventually exiting it in a process that ranges from excruciating to lethal.
 
Welcome to a bunch of guys thinking about babies.... they think about how they know them: 1) from a guy's perspective 2) as babies and not the host growth.
 
In short, quite limited, and generally unaware.
That's very politically correct, and there's some truth to it--significant truth--but to suggest a man, much less a father, has only a limited sense of the full meaning and importance of babies, to the extent that their discussion of them is inherently sophomoric compared to that of women, is more spin than critical. It just depends upon the degree of hyperbole being used, and that kind of info is hard to extract from a single comment like this.
 
As noted before, the religious objections have only been around in recent history. Catholics made abortion an issue when women started demanding the right to own land and vote in Europe. Baptists made abortion an issue when feminists demanded to be judged on their own, and not as wives of men.
 
It isn't about the fetus and when it gets "personality". It's about enforcing a male view on women and society.
And that's the kind of psychologically driven thinking and perception that flies under the radar unless you're at least pretty effective at introspection, and that seems to be a seriously waning inclination right now, across the board (oddly enough as the far right and dogmatists in particular gain undue influence ... well, which is the same as just saying when they gain significant influence, really).


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 01, 2016, 05:39AM
Reduce the incidence of unwanted pregnancy, and BAM! problem solved. For example, give kids a sane education about sex instead of some hand waving about abstinence, and guess what? You already know the answer. Rape is a thornier problem, whose discussion typically generates a lot of heat. Anybody got some light to shed on that?

But that would mean people who are so depraved as to disagree with the religious dogmatists--and are so insolent as to actually act accordingly--aren't going to be punished for it!!!
 
We'll have none of that!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Nov 01, 2016, 06:49AM
That's very politically correct, and there's some truth to it--significant truth--but to suggest a man, much less a father, has only a limited sense of the full meaning and importance of babies, to the extent that their discussion of them is inherently sophomoric compared to that of women, is more spin than critical. It just depends upon the degree of hyperbole being used, and that kind of info is hard to extract from a single comment like this.
Well, no. There is a significant gulf between a man and a woman on having a baby... The man watches her go through it. The woman actually goes through it. That is not spin, and it is not hyperbole. What it is, is a vastly different experience and understanding... and it is highlighted by the complete obsession on a "fetus" and what it is or isn't, and the routine disregard for the mother, as exemplified by the conversation here.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 01, 2016, 07:16AM
Bruce didn't meet my point because he's discussing legalities instead of merits. As to the 'personality' (in the plainest sense) of a fetus, that's the crux of this thing, right?

Agreed, my earlier point was about "moral" high ground not the current legal state of affairs. I'm actually very pro-choice and think it's critical, if you care about reducing unwanted pregnancies, to champion comprehensive sex education and easily available (secular) family planning support. All that aside, there are good and rigorous arguments for life from conception."Viability" is really about attempting to draw lines in the least arbitrary way possible. It is utilitarian and, imo, necessary but it isn't really a counter to a moral argument.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 01, 2016, 07:38AM
I personally feel that if a man fertilizes a woman and splits he has no say in what happens to the baby.  If the man remains with the woman as part of a unit he may have some input.  A man who has no contact and no financial interest in the outcome of the pregnancy needs to butt out of the thing.  This is a very Libertarian view, Moley.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 01, 2016, 07:49AM
I personally feel that if a man fertilizes a woman and splits he has no say in what happens to the baby.  If the man remains with the woman as part of a unit he may have some input.  A man who has no contact and no financial interest in the outcome of the pregnancy needs to butt out of the thing.  This is a very Libertarian view, Moley.
And if a man fertilizes a woman, stays, and she decides to terminate against his will?

If a man fertilizes a woman and requests that she terminate?

If a man fertilizes a woman and she doesn't inform him?

None of those hypotheticals addresses or counters the moral position of life starting at conception.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Nov 01, 2016, 07:59AM
None of those hypotheticals addresses or counters the moral position of life starting at conception.
You mean the religious moral position of life starting at conception? The very type of things you said should not play a role in government or law, unless it can be justified outside of religion or tradition?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 01, 2016, 08:03AM
You mean the religious moral position of life starting at conception? The very type of things you said should not play a role in government or law, unless it can be justified outside of religion or tradition?
Yes, exactly.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 01, 2016, 08:19AM
The religious concept of when life starts seems to change as our understanding changes.  At one time the first moves of the baby in the womb (usually called "quickening") was the start of life, even though that takes place much later in the pregnancy.

The change in concept seems to be related to the attempt to keep women as second class citizens.  As B0B has mentioned:  Man > Result of Man's thingie > woman.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 01, 2016, 08:21AM
The religious concept of when life starts seems to change as our understanding changes.  At one time the first moves of the baby in the womb (usually called "quickening") was the start of life, even though that takes place much later in the pregnancy.

The change in concept seems to be related to the attempt to keep women as second class citizens.  As B0B has mentioned:  Man > Result of Man's thingie > woman.
I mean, that's interesting and all, but looking at the motives of some who may make an argument doesn't address the argument they make.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Nov 01, 2016, 08:25AM


The change in concept seems to be related to the attempt to keep women as second class citizens.  As B0B has mentioned:  Man > Result of Man's thingie > woman.

A number of times I've run into the argument that women should not be allowed to escape the consequences of having sex.  That's not the same as trying to keep them from power - it's more a societal judgment that sex is sinful in and of itself, and that women should not be having it.  The same prohibition does not seem to apply to the men making that judgment.  Perhaps if our society were less conflicted about sex the discussion would be easier.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 01, 2016, 08:51AM
Well, no. There is a significant gulf between a man and a woman on having a baby... The man watches her go through it. The woman actually goes through it. That is not spin, and it is not hyperbole. What it is, is a vastly different experience and understanding... and it is highlighted by the complete obsession on a "fetus" and what it is or isn't, and the routine disregard for the mother, as exemplified by the conversation here.

Sure, when you limit your consideration to the pregnancy and delivery (or even just being the mother in the equation) then there's a very significant gap in understanding what babies are all about--same if you limit your focus to fathering. If you don't focus solely on those things though ... not so much. Turns out men understand babies too.
 
But I'm not interested in fixating on whatever appearance of difference we can glean from this and then choosing up sides to fling poo over it. I'll just accept that we agree and that there are a couple of different perspectives involved in parenting--one of which obviously has the monopoly on expertise in the complete understanding of the experience of carrying and delivering a baby. I'm not really interested in the competition thing (doesn't mean a lot to break out the rulers online). We agree. I also agree with the underlying point I think you're making about men controlling women and the fact that's a huge issue here. Let's go with that and avoid getting bogged down in a faux duel.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Nov 03, 2016, 06:51AM
Enough of that. Next;

Standing Rock
I hate to say this, but it’s getting harder and harder to be proud to be an American. By the time you are reading this, we will be wrapping up as ugly an election season as has ever been endured in this country.

We will have either elected a vastly unpopular candidate who will maintain a status quo virtually everyone recognizes is severely broken and in need of repair, or we will have followed Britain off the cliff by electing a race-baiting, hate-mongering, misogynisitic, bullying, cheating con-man and demagogue. Either way, it is hard to imagine things getting much better for the average American.

And,while all the attention has been sucked up by the ugliness of the campaign, the mainstream media has largely ignored an ongoing confrontation between Big Oil’s corporate interests, backed up by the power of the State, and the Standing Rock Sioux of the Lakota Nation. Hundreds of peaceful protesters have been pepper sprayed and shot with rubber bullets by police officers from 5 different states.

Photos show police in armored vehicles and combat “battle-rattle” more appropriate to the battle to re-take Mosul from ISIS than to confront peaceful protesters on an American prairie. Were it not for social media, it is highly likely no one would know anything about this ongoing travesty of justice.

The native Americans involved in this dispute have legitimate grievances about the routing and construction of this pipeline and its potential to damage cultural sites they deem sacred as well as their access to clean drinking water. That their peaceful, unarmed occupation of “private property” has been met with such overwhelming force stands in stark contrast to how white protesters were treated when they occupied government land under the force of arms. That contrast makes a joke of the line “AND JUSTICE FOR ALL” in the pledge we hold so dear.

The Federal government and the Army Corps of Engineers have currently halted construction of the pipeline through some of the disputed areas under the Corps jurisdiction, but a Federal Appeals Court recently set aside an injunction holding construction in adjacent areas. President Obama says he hopes the pipeline can be re-routed, but he will “Let it play out.”

That is not a response Native Americans should take much hope or solace from. Their history at the hands of the American government is shameful. I, for one, am not proud of that.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 03, 2016, 06:55AM
lol at "peaceful" protestors. Love this trope, even if it's a bit tired.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 03, 2016, 08:01AM
lol at "peaceful" protestors. Love this trope, even if it's a bit tired.

I've been following this and having seen violence on the part of the protesters.
Goodness has a report on a shooting. Other sources say it's unclear how this is related to the protesters.

What's wrong with people using their right to peaceably assembly and petition their government?

DRB

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/north-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-protests-explainer


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 03, 2016, 08:11AM
I've been following this and having seen violence on the part of the protesters.
Goodness has a report on a shooting. Other sources say it's unclear how this is related to the protesters.

What's wrong with people using their right to peaceably assembly and petition their government?

DRB

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/nov/03/north-dakota-access-oil-pipeline-protests-explainer
The part where they forgot to petition their government followed closely by forgetting to be peaceful. Other than that there's nothing wrong with your loaded question.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 03, 2016, 09:43AM
Molefsky
"The part where they forgot to petition their government"
I don't think that "petitioning the government" is limited to writing your complaints out on a piece of paper, gathering signatures and dlivering it to Washington.
The SCOTUS has held that flag burning is a protected form of speech. So I don't think its unreasonable to see non-violent demonstrations as an acceptable way to petiton the government. The protestors are just using a different medium of expression.


"followed closely by forgetting to be peaceful."

I haven't seen any independent supporting documentation that the protestors are not being non-violent. And how much lee way should be allowed along the lines of self defense when they are being violently attacked?

Some of the heroes of our revolution resorted to shying jagged bits of ice at the "Law enforement officers" of their day. 

Jefferson's comment on Shay's rebellion, in which citizens broke into an armory, took weapons and used them to threaten tax collectors, was basically that a little violence was OK in that it kept the revolution fresh in the eye's of the government. Like the armed occcupation in Oregon I think that is a little more violent than I'm comfortable with and is certainly more violent than what the DAPL protestors have done.

We have a strong tradition of public protest as a form of petition to our government. How much violence has occured or how much violence we feel is acceptable does not invalidate the protest.

"Other than that there's nothing wrong with your loaded question."

Loaded? Nah,just tit for tat to your "LOL non-violent" jibe.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 03, 2016, 09:49AM
    https://teespring.com/all-i-want-for-c-november-2016#pid=2&cid=573&sid=front
Just to keep it light.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 03, 2016, 09:56AM
So which is it? The protestors haven't been "not non-violent" or they've been less violent than the Oregon nuts?

Further, you can't really claim to be defending yourself when you break into someone else's property and attack them. If I showed up at your house one night, broke your window with a brick, climbed in while yelling in your face and slapped the remote out of your hand I'd hardly have a case to argue that I was just defending myself.

On petition, exactly how active was tribal leadership in voicing concerns through the official channels guaranteed to them by the government? It's my understanding that they  didn't even offer comment on the proposed route even though repeatedly contacted about it as is required by law. You don't really get to pretend like you're the victim of a corrupt system when you didn't even take a cursory step to achieve what you claim is and was your goal.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 03, 2016, 10:12AM
Our treatment of Native Americans has been on a par with the treatment of Blacks in the Jim Crow South.

They don't trust the Bureau of Indian Affairs any more than the Blacks of Selma Alabama trusted the local Police Department.

They probably figured (correctly) that the BIA wouldn't care a fig for them.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 03, 2016, 10:20AM
And the army corps of engineers? Are they the white devil as well?

Like I said. You'll get no sympathy from me if you can't so much as write a letter of complaint before physically attacking construction workers.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 03, 2016, 12:07PM
MolefskY
"So which is it? The protestors haven't been "not non-violent" or they've been less violent than the Oregon nuts?"

Niether you or I know what violenec has occured at this protest. What I as saying was that a certain level of violence has in the past been tolerated from protesters. The point I was trying to make was that the violence which my or may not have occured does not invalidate the petion.

"Further, you can't really claim to be defending yourself when you break into someone else's property and attack them. If I showed up at your house one night, broke your window with a brick, climbed in while yelling in your face and slapped the remote out of your hand I'd hardly have a case to argue that I was just defending myself."

This hypothetical is too different from the situation of the protesters to be relavent. On the other hand If the woman who is alleged to have shot at a security contractor believed she was doing so to prevent immenent harm to herself or others and that she believed that she had no other reasonable options she could  make a good "Necessity Defense"* for herself.

"On petition, exactly how active was tribal leadership in voicing concerns through the official channels guaranteed to them by the government?** It's my understanding that they didn't even offer comment on the proposed route even though repeatedly contacted about it as is required by law. You don't really get to pretend like you're the victim of a corrupt system when you didn't even take a cursory step to achieve what you claim is and was your goal."

This is like a tricky lawyer using a woman's past sexual activity against her in defending a rapist. What the tribe did or didn't do has no bearing on the validity of their current complaint.

As Bruce points out the tribe's experience with the white legal system has not been all roses. So what seems to be a reasonable option to us may be seen as a waste of time to them. **After all the property which is the focus of this situation was guaranteed to the tribes by treaty in 1851.

*Here is an interesting article on the use of a Necessity Defense by environmental protesters (http://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/climate-change-activists-consider-the-necessity-defense ) It sounds like the judge decided against the defendents in this case because they didn't establish Globl Warming as an imminent harm. South Dakota law reads a little differently than the New York standard but I think it would be an interesting plea for the protesters to make. If they could show the current cost of climate change interms of property damage, crop loss etc. to be imminent harm and a greater harm than caused by stopping the pipeline construction they might be able to make it stick.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 03, 2016, 12:22PM
Unfortunately for them natgas and updated pipelines help slow environmental damage. Further, you can't trespass and then shoot at the person removing you from the property.

On the broader point, no you don't get to claim that the system is corrupt if you didn't bother trying in the first place. This would be like me being pissed I wasn't elected president when I started campaigning on the 9th.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Doghouse Dan on Nov 03, 2016, 12:37PM

On the broader point, no you don't get to claim that the system is corrupt if you didn't bother trying in the first place.

Does the Trail of Tears ring a bell?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 03, 2016, 12:41PM
Does the Trail of Tears ring a bell?
lol, seriously?

I expect the Egyptian government to pay me for the lost labor of my ancestors before Moses liberated us.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Doghouse Dan on Nov 03, 2016, 01:08PM
lol, seriously?

I expect the Egyptian government to pay me for the lost labor of my ancestors before Moses liberated us.

The reference was not about reparations, rather about Native Americans' experience working with the system.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 03, 2016, 01:19PM
Molefsky
"lol, seriously?"
Here's a Native American's experience of trying to go through official channels.
North Dakota state Chief Archeologist Paul Picha- you stuttered and had no answers for our water protectors when they came to you in August. You told us how "tribal consultation" is meaningless, how "re-routing" has no spacial specification, how there are no legal obligations for the State Historic Preservation Office or Dakota Access to abide by the advice of the Tribal Historic Preservation Office, how you worked with Dakota Access to push this dysfunctional process through, knowing you were sacrificing sacred indigenous land. You have failed in your job as a historic preservation officer. You have desecrated burial sites and erased indigenous history. You should be ashamed."



DRB
Seola Creek



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 03, 2016, 01:20PM
So I guess women shouldn't vote because they couldn't historically? (is that better?)

If you don't take even the most basic steps to engage with the system then you have no claim to make that it was biased against you.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Doghouse Dan on Nov 03, 2016, 01:28PM
So I guess women shouldn't vote because they couldn't historically? (is that better?)

If you don't take even the most basic steps to engage with the system then you have no claim to make that it was biased against you.

Molefsky, I'm actually curious as to how you reached the conclusion that no attempt to work through the system was made.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: trb420 on Nov 03, 2016, 01:41PM
The reference was not about reparations, rather about Native Americans' experience working with the system.

"Working with the system"

i.e. refusing to join or adapt to American society and constantly warring with the Americans (Creek Indian Wars, Seminole Wars, etc.)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 03, 2016, 01:51PM
Molefsky link
"So I guess women shouldn't vote because they couldn't historically? (is that better?)"

That's a diversion from the original comment that native Americans might be cynical about the possibility of their success using the official system and is not different than your comment vis. expecting reparations from Egypt

If you don't take even the most basic steps to engage with the system then you have no claim to make that it was biased against you.

This statement was a comment from someone involved in taking those basic steps:
North Dakota state Chief Archeologist Paul Picha- you stuttered and had no answers for our water protectors when they came to you in August. You told us how "tribal consultation" is meaningless, how "re-routing" has no spacial specification, how there are no legal obligations for the State Historic Preservation Office or Dakota Access to abide by the advice of the Tribal Historic Preservation Office, how you worked with Dakota Access to push this dysfunctional process through, knowing you were sacrificing sacred indigenous land. You have failed in your job as a historic preservation officer. You have desecrated burial sites and erased indigenous history. You should be ashamed."
It's one person's recollection but is indicative of his experience with "official channels".

Here's another First American's opinion
Via Laree Poirer:
"Criminal trespass... Have they forgotten that Dakota Access completely disregarded Fort Laramie Treaty Law, intentionally rerouted from Bismarck to Standing Rock because Indians don't matter, ignored the fact that DAPL puts the Ogallala Aquifer at risk, never completed an Environmental Impact Statement and has desecrated sacred burial grounds MULTIPLE times?"


It's important to note that the Pipeline was relocated from upstream (north) of Bismarck ND to downstream of that town due to the citizen's concerns about potential ground water pollution. This put the route just north of the Standing Rock reservation. Did that potential for groundwater pollution magically disappear or did Energy Partners choose to pick a weaker opponent?


DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 03, 2016, 01:53PM
Molefsky
"lol, seriously?"
Here's a Native American's experience of trying to go through official channels.
North Dakota state Chief Archeologist Paul Picha- you stuttered and had no answers for our water protectors when they came to you in August. You told us how "tribal consultation" is meaningless, how "re-routing" has no spacial specification, how there are no legal obligations for the State Historic Preservation Office or Dakota Access to abide by the advice of the Tribal Historic Preservation Office, how you worked with Dakota Access to push this dysfunctional process through, knowing you were sacrificing sacred indigenous land. You have failed in your job as a historic preservation officer. You have desecrated burial sites and erased indigenous history. You should be ashamed."

"I expect the Egyptian government to pay me for the lost labor of my ancestors before Moses liberated us."

But isn't there a tradition of solidarity with oppressed peoples based on that history with the oppressed?

Nine Philly Rabbis & Jewish community members arrested protesting Dakota Access Pipeline at TD Bank (https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/nine-philly-rabbis-jewish-community-members-arrested-protesting-dakota-access-pipeline-td-bank/)

DRB
Seola Creek


Cool anecdote. I'm that's exactly how it happened, and then he shed a single tear...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 03, 2016, 01:59PM
ere's another First American's opinion
Via Laree Poirer:
"Criminal trespass... Have they forgotten that Dakota Access completely disregarded Fort Laramie Treaty Law, intentionally rerouted from Bismarck to Standing Rock because Indians don't matter, ignored the fact that DAPL puts the Ogallala Aquifer at risk, never completed an Environmental Impact Statement and has desecrated sacred burial grounds MULTIPLE times?"
This is the only pertinent statement here, in bold. If it's true they might get some sympathy from me but I suspect it's another lie or convenient mistake. The rest is just hooey about magical land.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 03, 2016, 02:43PM
This is the only pertinent statement here, in bold. If it's true they might get some sympathy from me but I suspect it's another lie or convenient mistake. The rest is just hooey about magical land.
" it's another lie"
Rhymes with Bye-bye
DRB


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 04, 2016, 07:17AM
" it's another lie"
Rhymes with Bye-bye
DRB
Rhymes with fly and sty as well.

After looking at the environmental analysis claim it looks like it's sort of true though misrepresented. The relevant agencies certainly did perform or required the environmental analysis but after approval was granted the route was changed to the current disputed route. This was done, seemingly, without explicit approval from the relevant agencies which is why they initially attempted to halt the construction (after protest began). In fact, it looks like the pipeline is like 90% completed which suggests to me that the company knew that people would balk at the new route and saved that portion for last. Perhaps they were gambling that they could get it off the ground before people caught wind. Having the government force a business to shut down a functioning pipeline would be a lot harder to argue/justify in the court of public opinion.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 04, 2016, 10:35AM
...that people would balk at the new route and saved that portion for last. Perhaps they were gambling that they could get it off the ground before people caught wind. Having the government force a business to shut down a functioning pipeline would be a lot harder to argue/justify in the court of public opinion.
That's my analysis. DAPL was intended to go north of Bismarck and after the residents raised a stink it was re-routed to the north edge of the Standing Rock Reservation planning on using Corps of Engineer managed land as it's bridgehead on the west bank of the Missouri. DAPL got the cart ahead of the horse in terms of permits, environmental and cultural impact assessments. It looks like they want to get the work done before winter weather hits.

The moral question is why not take time to review the process to see that the First Americans' rights have been respected? (With the current oil glut this oil is not needed so what's the rush?)

The question of the Greater Good needs to be looked at. Have we reached a point where the harm of fossil fuel consumption, pollution, health impacts and environmental damage are greater than the good produced by that consumption?

DRB
Seola Creek

<Edit: Fixed Quote>


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 06, 2016, 02:30PM
Why Women Have Abortions:

The reasons they gave in 2004

25% Not ready for a(nother) child/timing is wrong

23% Can't afford a baby now

19% Have completed my childbearing/have other people depending on me/children are grown

8% Don't want to be a single mother/am having relationship problems

7% Don't feel mature enough to raise a(nother) child/feel too young

4% Would interfere with education or career plans

4% Physical problem with my health

3% Possible problems affecting the health of the fetus

<0.5% Was a victim of rape

<0.5% Husband or partner wants me to have an abortion

<0.5% Parents want me to have an abortion

<0.5% Don't want people to know I had sex or got pregnant

6% Other

Note:

Even the women having the abortions know that the fetus is an unborn baby, and that is overwhelmingly why they want the abortions: Because they don't want the baby. (hint: they didn't say they didn't want the fetus.)

They know without a doubt that if they don't have the abortion, they will end up with an unwanted baby. How hard is that to understand? The fetus is a human being, and if not murdered, or fall victim to a deathly problem, will become a human being.

I don't know why that piece of factoid is always treated as a religious fact, when it is very scientific, and really has nothing to do with religion.

I bet that if you poll any number of people, the conclusion will always be the same, if you don't abort, you will have a baby.
If you do abort, you will not have a baby. This has nothing to do with gender either.

Sorry Russ, for this delayed post, but I was out of town having fun.






Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 06, 2016, 02:47PM
Dusty, you can rest assured that most of these abortions occur very early in the pregnancy, with a non-viable fetus or even an embryo.

if you force these women to go to term, they may not properly nurture the child.  It may be a cause of resentment and may wind up a victim of child abuse.

Parents who want a child will probably not abort.  Often an unexpected pregnancy may change minds.

But an unwanted child is probably better off not born.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 06, 2016, 04:20PM
But an unwanted child is probably better off not born.
Bruce
As the 3 Stooges put it "I resemble that remark."

I think by arguing with DD you have backed yourself around so that you appear to be trying to make a positive statement about abortion. A sort of "It's probably for the best." statement.  I think a "It's the lesser of two evils." would be easier to defend.

Where DD goes astray is arguing the minutiae of abortion = baby murder. An arguement which will never be settled and will certainly do little to reduce the number of abortions.

His list of statistics reads like the responses to a survey in which the women were asked to check the situation which best matched their own. Trying to make an argument that the use of the word "baby" is silly.

What I think is important is how did these women get to the point of completing this survey and  at what point prior to that point can we support them with choices so they don't end up with that survey in their hands?

Duff


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 06, 2016, 04:26PM
I think Dusty needs to walk a mile in the shoes of these women who opt for abortion.  It's easy to say from your male perspective that "a baby is sacred" but he doesn't have to find the wherewithal to feed, clothe, and house the thing.  He's not going to be fired from a job, miss a promotion, or otherwise be disadvantaged by this remote pregnancy.  He's safe in his nice Houston home far away from all of them.  It's much easier to deal with pregnancy as a concept rather than a reality.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Nov 06, 2016, 04:54PM
Tubal Ligation.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 06, 2016, 05:00PM
Tubal Ligation.

How about a vasectomy instead?  Or I understand that Zika can cause the testes to shrink by 80%.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: badger on Nov 06, 2016, 05:19PM
No Problem...Zika/Yikes.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 06, 2016, 05:58PM
Yikesd
So far, given the paucity of suggestions here, the most effective way of reducing the need for abortions are Planned Parenthood's education and contraceptive services.

Note: PLANNED PARENTHOOD. You want an effective way to reduce abortions? it's right there in the name. Preempt the need and the "problem" goes away.

Duff


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 06, 2016, 06:11PM
Yikesd
So far, given the paucity of suggestions here, the most effective way of reducing the need for abortions are Planned Parenthood's education and contraceptive services.

Note: PLANNED PARENTHOOD. You want an effective way to reduce abortions? it's right there in the name. Preempt the need and the "problem" goes away.

Duff

The stats that I used came from Planned Parenthood, which is planned deception, because if you abort, you abort you opportunity to become a parent. Typical misuse of language.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 06, 2016, 06:37PM
Doug is simply suggesting that Planned Parenthood, which gives education, birth control, and women's health screening, is one of the best sources to reduce  the need for abortion.  Planned Parenthood offers an abortion service (but not in every facility) to try to prevent people from doing back alley abortions, which are more dangerous because they often can result in death or infertility of the mother as well as death of the embryo.

If you look at the amount of money Planned Parenthood gets from abortions, it's a VERY small fraction of its total cash flow.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 06, 2016, 07:38PM
Doug is simply suggesting that Planned Parenthood, which gives education, birth control, and women's health screening, is one of the best sources to reduce  the need for abortion.  Planned Parenthood offers an abortion service (but not in every facility) to try to prevent people from doing back alley abortions, which are more dangerous because they often can result in death or infertility of the mother as well as death of the embryo.
 
If you look at the amount of money Planned Parenthood gets from abortions, it's a VERY small fraction of its total cash flow.

Doesn't matter what they actually do or why, the Home Team pamphlets and bumper stickers say they're eeeeevil! Actually I don't think they're doing pamphlets any more--it's posters (for the heavy readers) and bumper stickers.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 06, 2016, 11:05PM
The stats that I used came from Planned Parenthood, which is planned deception, because if you abort, you abort you opportunity to become a parent. Typical misuse of language.

Having children is hereditary. If your parents didn't have any, chances are you won't either.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Nov 07, 2016, 04:53AM
The stats that I used came from Planned Parenthood, which is planned deception, because if you abort, you abort you opportunity to become a parent. Typical misuse of language.



Actually, in MANY cases an abortion improves a woman's chance to be an excellent parent she when she is ready, in all the phases of her life, to be a parent. I know, personally, several women for whom this is a FACT. I also have a family member who has spent a life of infertility due to a botched abortion prior to the Roe decision. Fortunately, she did not die. She was one of the lucky (?) ones.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 07, 2016, 05:21AM
Actually, in MANY cases an abortion improves a woman's chance to be an excellent parent she when she is ready, in all the phases of her life, to be a parent.

Exactly. DD's "error" is so blatant I expect it flies under the radar for a lot of people. Planned = intentional.
 
You have to try pretty hard in failing to grasp that one. You can certainly disagree with Planned Parenthood, but it's often very hard to tell if dogmatists (the more mindless, reactionary types) actually even understand what they've been told to hate and to try and suppress. When you can't even apparently figure that one out, or your level of indoctrination won't allow you to intellectually absorb the facts and concepts that are particularly hostile to your dogma, then your world is filled with straw men, and you simply don't see the realities they've replaced. That's why it's intellectual cowardice to "think" that way--you're simply filtering out that which you don't want to face, as if reality is obliged to accommodate your delicate personal sensibilities.
 
And that mindset it what sets the social climate in here, because when it rears up it's lavished with attention--very few, it seems, have both the clarity of understanding and the self-discipline to give it the appropriate degree of attention it deserves.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 07, 2016, 06:29AM
Actually, in MANY cases an abortion improves a woman's chance to be an excellent parent she when she is ready, in all the phases of her life, to be a parent. I know, personally, several women for whom this is a FACT. I also have a family member who has spent a life of infertility due to a botched abortion prior to the Roe decision. Fortunately, she did not die. She was one of the lucky (?) ones.


By that logic, a criminal who shoots the store clerk, will become a much better shopper. LOL!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 07, 2016, 06:32AM

Exactly. DD's "error" is so blatant I expect it flies under the radar for a lot of people. Planned = intentional.

Planned == intentional abortion. If you want your baby, you go to a hospital, if you want an abortion, you go to 'planned abortion centers'.

I have never met a mother who went to planned parenthood to have a baby. LOL!

You guys a nuts!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 07, 2016, 06:52AM
You sound like the men of 100 years ago when Planned Parenthood was getting started.  They didn't want anything interfering with their keeping their women "barefoot and pregnant" as a means of control.  PP does WAY more than abortions.  It's too bad you get so fixated on one thing.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 07, 2016, 07:21AM
Innocent ignorance is innocent.
 
Willful ignorance is foolishness.
 
Malicious, mean-spirited or judgmental willful ignorance is deplorable.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Nov 07, 2016, 08:10AM
Innocent ignorance is innocent.
 
Willful ignorance is foolishness.
 
Malicious, mean-spirited or judgmental willful ignorance is deplorable.

AMEN! Talk about absurd false equivalencies.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 07, 2016, 08:18AM
Where is the connection between saving babies lives and wanting women pregnant and barefoot?

False equivalences.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Nov 07, 2016, 09:04AM
Save your breath Dusty.  People who are pro-abortion do not admit that the baby in the womb is still a human baby.  For them, until it's born, it has no rights. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 07, 2016, 09:33AM
Save your breath Dusty.  People who are pro-abortion do not admit that the baby in the womb is still a human baby.  For them, until it's born, it has no rights.

http://tromboneforum.org/index.php/topic,90506.msg1164421.html#msg1164421


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 07, 2016, 09:47AM
Innocent ignorance is innocent.
 
Willful ignorance is foolishness.
 
Malicious, mean-spirited or judgmental willful ignorance is deplorable.

I think you have just explained why Dusty supports Trump :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 07, 2016, 10:57AM
I have never met a mother who went to planned parenthood to have a baby. LOL!

Actually, some PP centers offer prenatal medical care, so it's not unheard-of.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: wgwbassbone on Nov 07, 2016, 11:29AM
Planned == intentional abortion. If you want your baby, you go to a hospital, if you want an abortion, you go to 'planned abortion centers'.

I have never met a mother who went to planned parenthood to have a baby. LOL!

You guys a nuts!


Speaking of Ignorance.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Nov 07, 2016, 11:38AM
Actually, some PP centers offer prenatal medical care, so it's not unheard-of.

From Factcheck:

Quote
Abortions accounted for 3 percent of the nearly 10.6 million total services provided by Planned Parenthood clinics in 2013, according to its annual report.

Some services it provided in addition to abortions were:
◾4.5 million tests and treatment for sexually transmitted infections
◾3.6 million contraception related services
◾935,573 cancer screenings including breast exams and Pap tests
◾1.1 million pregnancy tests and prenatal services




Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 07, 2016, 12:16PM
Planned == intentional abortion. If you want your baby, you go to a hospital, if you want an abortion, you go to 'planned abortion centers'.

I have never met a mother who went to planned parenthood to have a baby. LOL!

You guys a nuts!
You're missing the point... You PLAN by having access to education and birth control so you don't end up pregnant and contemplating an abortion. That's one way that planned parenthood helps reduce abortions.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 07, 2016, 12:49PM
Innocent ignorance is innocent.
 
Willful ignorance is foolishness.
 
Malicious, mean-spirited or judgmental willful ignorance is deplorable.

Perfect description of democrats. willful ignorance, with mean spirited, malicious mockery towards those they disagree with.

50 years ago the democrat party was made up of white, blue collar workers, and employed.

Today?

Hillary calls them 'deplorables'. That's how far the democrat party has fallen.

Billy, you're right. No amount of facts will ever change the mind of a pro-abortion democrat.

I just have to put the facts out there, so they can't escape what it is that they favor.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 07, 2016, 03:26PM
Save your breath Dusty.  People who are pro-abortion do not admit that the baby in the womb is still a human baby.  For them, until it's born, it has no rights. 

Saying that people who are Pro-choice are Pro-abortion, an over simplification that distorts the truth, is the sort of nastiness which ramps up the discussion to name calling.

Like I said PP is more effective at reducing the number of abortions than our yammering away about "foetus or baby" argumentation.

DRB


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 07, 2016, 04:55PM
Saying that people who are Pro-choice are Pro-abortion, an over simplification that distorts the truth, is the sort of nastiness which ramps up the discussion to name calling.
 
Like I said PP is more effective at reducing the number of abortions than our yammering away about "foetus or baby" argumentation.

It could be said that's a perspective one might take if he values life more than his personal sentiments.
 
I wouldn't say that, though it is a good analog for the actual issue at hand here, and hopefully provides an instructive illustration of what you're saying.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 07, 2016, 06:20PM

Hillary calls them 'deplorables'. That's how far the democrat party has fallen.

I'm trying to figure out how calling racism 'deplorable' is sign of a fall. The Dems were a century or so late in doing it, but that doesn't make it wrong.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 08, 2016, 06:57AM
I'm trying to figure out how calling racism 'deplorable' is sign of a fall. The Dems were a century or so late in doing it, but that doesn't make it wrong.
She didn't call racism deplorable; she called people deplorable. Those people may be racists etc but she wasn't talking about an idea; she was characterizing people.

Just like if I say we should eradicate islam. I'm not talking about people.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 08, 2016, 08:48AM
She didn't call racism deplorable; she called people deplorable. Those people may be racists etc but she wasn't talking about an idea; she was characterizing people.
Clearly because she didn't connect every dot and explain everything so even a five year old could understand it (or just those who understand what "characterize" means), there was no connection.
 
Clearly.
 
That was the kind of thing an actual adult would have been too embarrassed to say or write outside of humor.
 
Just like if I say we should eradicate islam. I'm not talking about people.
You just refuted your own point ... but you do have to be able to translate the idea from the abstract into the concrete with at least a modest degree of effectiveness to realize it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 08, 2016, 10:03AM
She didn't call racism deplorable; she called people deplorable. Those people may be racists etc but she wasn't talking about an idea; she was characterizing people.

Then I'll rephrase that:
I'm trying to figure out how calling racist people 'deplorable' is sign of a fall.

Still seems fine to me.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 08, 2016, 12:14PM
You just refuted your own point ... but you do have to be able to translate the idea from the abstract into the concrete with at least a modest degree of effectiveness to realize it.
No, i clarified with an example and didn't refute my own point. Clearly PM understood.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 08, 2016, 03:14PM
You just refuted your own point ... but you do have to be able to translate the idea from the abstract into the concrete with at least a modest degree of effectiveness to realize it.
No, i clarified with an example and didn't refute my own point. Clearly PM understood.

Yeah, I understand just fine as well.
 
I already knew you didn't and won't (not can't) understand--no need to extrapolate.
 
Interesting take on PM's comment though.
 
No spin there. Heh.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 09, 2016, 10:41AM
No, i clarified with an example and didn't refute my own point. Clearly PM understood.

Well, I understood your point and refuted it. There's nothing wrong with calling racism 'deplorable', and there's also nothing wrong with calling racists 'deplorable.' Both are accurate and called for.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 09, 2016, 11:00AM
Well, I understood your point and refuted it. There's nothing wrong with calling racism 'deplorable', and there's also nothing wrong with calling racists 'deplorable.' Both are accurate and called for.


See BVB, he understood.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 09, 2016, 11:34AM
See BVB, he understood.

I'll agree with BvB that your example was a bit weak. You couldn't 'eradicate' Islam without criticizing its practitioners (I know, love the sinner hate the sin, but individual people might object to your well-intentioned efforts to re-educate them and prevent them from worshiping as they please). I just think your idea that you can call racism deplorable but Hillary was wrong to 'name-call' against actual  people is ridiculous.

I think child molestation is deplorable. I also think child molesters are deplorable.

Your hand-wringing is a bit silly. We're supposed to believe that a person who calls whole groups of people 'disgusting' has some delicate sensibility that's breached by calling racists 'deplorable.' Trump's the biggest, most obvious phony I ever met. I hope he rises to the occasion now that we're stuck with him.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 09, 2016, 11:55AM
I'll agree with BvB that your example was a bit weak. You couldn't 'eradicate' Islam without criticizing its practitioners (I know, love the sinner hate the sin, but individual people might object to your well-intentioned efforts to re-educate them and prevent them from worshiping as they please). I just think your idea that you can call racism deplorable but Hillary was wrong to 'name-call' against actual  people is ridiculous.

I think child molestation is deplorable. I also think child molesters are deplorable.

Your hand-wringing is a bit silly. We're supposed to believe that a person who calls whole groups of people 'disgusting' has some delicate sensibility that's breached by calling racists 'deplorable.' Trump's the biggest, most obvious phony I ever met. I hope he rises to the occasion now that we're stuck with him.

Part of the problem with text only communication is that quick clarification and subtlety are difficult to get across. "Wrong" to namecall in this case is my assessment of her tactics as a mistake. Further, there is an undeniable difference in criticizing an idea vs indicting the people that think it. Islam should absolutely be eradicated from the face of the earth, aside from history books and museums I guess. Muslims are people and should, optimally, be allowed to cultivate and value secular societies. But that's all taking the example too far. I simply used it to illustrate the concept of criticizing racism vs claiming "racists" are unsalvageably bad people at their core. This is especially problematic when you apply the term "racist" so liberally as to be meaningless.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 09, 2016, 03:20PM
Democrats have called every body that disagrees with them racists for so long, that the term racist doesn't mean anything anymore.

I guess if Hillary would have been elected, the democrats would have been able to add the term 'sexist' to 'racist' for those that oppose her policies.

This is just so 'alinsky'.

Now that we have trump, maybe the republicans can come up with an 'alinsky' to call out his opponents.  :dontknow:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 09, 2016, 04:57PM
This is just so 'alinsky'.

Now that we have trump, maybe the republicans can come up with an 'alinsky' to call out his opponents.  :dontknow:

You and your Alinsky. Honestly, you need to get out there and read something.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 09, 2016, 07:30PM
I thought it was the Trump supporters that wouldn't accept Hillary's election?

Leftist media always get everything wrong,

PM, do you know who alinsky is? It doesn't look like it according to your post.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 01:00AM
I thought it was the Trump supporters that wouldn't accept Hillary's election?

How would we know if he would have? He wouldn't say, and it didn't happen. Hillary conceded the election, and to my knowledge, so have her supporters.

Quote
PM, do you know who alinsky is? It doesn't look like it according to your post.

I do indeed. I'm not sure what in my post would have led you to believe otherwise, but you're not fact-driven.

Unlike you, I didn't just cut and paste the name from one of those dreary little websites you inhabit, that appeal to the terminally incurious, and instruct you to say "Alinsky" as often as possible. The only thing you know about him is that he must be really bad, because they're telling us to say it, and he has something to do with Obama and Hillary. Alinsky Alinsky Alinsky! You've found a poor substitute for actual learning. For what it's worth, Alinsky has many conservative admirers, but why would you know that? They don't post it in the Daily Caller.

Then again, why would I listen to someone who can't spell 'everybody'? You're always trying to give the other forumites a civics lesson, but you'd profit more by taking one.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 01:14AM
Now that we have trump, maybe the republicans can come up with an 'alinsky' to call out his opponents.  :dontknow:

Maybe they just hate him because he's orange.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 10, 2016, 05:55AM
Hillary conceded the election, and to my knowledge, so have her supporters.


Maybe you missed the protestors in NY and Austin?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 10, 2016, 06:14AM
Maybe you missed the protestors in NY and Austin?

I'm sure that if Hillary won there would be Right to Lifers and Gun Rights activists demonstrating in the streets.  We have something called the First Amendment, remember?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 10, 2016, 06:21AM
I'm sure that if Hillary won there would be Right to Lifers and Gun Rights activists demonstrating in the streets.  We have something called the First Amendment, remember?

Were there protests when Obama won in the streets?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 10, 2016, 06:32AM
Certain "participants" in here are always comparing apples to orangutans because they've learned (been trained) to see things in ways that comfortably fit into their preconceptions rather than making their conceptions of things fit the way they are. In short, they actually don't recognize apples and orangutans as different--comparing them as equivalents just fits comfortably into their views about them.
 
Without that fundamental degree of integrity in perceptions and understanding and thinking, there's nothing to actually work with in discussion. There's just too little connection to real things and real functions and such. That has to be in place before genuine discussion or even consideration of real things can take place in a functional manner.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 10, 2016, 06:40AM
Certain "participants" in here are always comparing apples to orangutans because they've learned (been trained) to see things in ways that comfortably fit into their preconceptions rather than making their conceptions of things fit the way they are. In short, they actually don't recognize apples and orangutans as different--comparing them as equivalents just fits comfortably into their views about them.
 
Without that fundamental degree of integrity in perceptions and understanding and thinking, there's nothing to actually work with in discussion. There's just too little connection to real things and real functions and such. That has to be in place before genuine discussion or even consideration of real things can take place in a functional manner.

Perfect description of the left.  And we all know that the leftists just will not accept any other way of thinking other than their own.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 10, 2016, 06:41AM
We have something called the First Amendment, remember?
Which doesn't include vandalism and rioting.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 09:03AM
Maybe you missed the protestors in NY and Austin?

People are entitled to protest. I was never worried that Trump supporters would protest--I was worried they would mount an armed insurrection.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Nov 10, 2016, 09:59AM
Perfect description of the left.  And we all know that the leftists just will not accept any other way of thinking other than their own.

What I find hard to accept is the harm to children which "President Trump" is proposing. In his "100 day plan" it states that he will totally repeal Obamacare. Instead of looking at the postitives and negatives of that law he says he will chuck out the whole thing. There is an old saying which describes this sort of thinking "Don't throw the baby out with the bath water."  This may sound quaint but I take it personally as my daughter is one of the babies who is going to be thrown out by Trump's plan to deal with the bath water of Obamacare.

There are three parts of Obamacare which provide millions of children with healthcare: Insurance companies can't refuse coverage for "preexisting conditions; insurance companies have to cover mental healthcare as well as physical healthcare and chidren under 26 who are living at home can be covered by their family's insurance. Trump doesn't give details but the most likely path will be for a relapse to the previous situation (Children age out of a family insurance coverage at 18. Companies can refuse coverage of "Pre-existing conditions and mental health benefits will be at a premium.)

My daughter is 18. She is currently covered by our family policy and receives medical, psychiatric and therapy for her disabilities. When Obamacare is repealled she, like millions of other children will be dropped from their families' coverage. They will not be able to find affordable insurance with mental health benefits.

Right now my daughter is on a path to graduate from H.S., go to community college and maybe university as she wants to be a special education teacher and work with children with dsabilities.

Without Obamacare the support she gets from her healthcare insurance which enables her to do this work will be gone. Past history shows that a lower middle class family like ours won't be able to afford to buy equivalent coverage. Our daughter might be able to get on Social Security Disability Insurance but it takes about 3 years for this to happen. Our family's income would probably disqualify her from this program so to receive these benefits she would have to be on her own.  instead of being at school moving towards a career she would have to wait for three years without the medication, and support which she now receives before she would get benefits at a much lower level than what she now receives.

What I don't find acceptable about "President Trump" is that what he is proposing will throw my daughter's hope for the future out the window.

DRB
Seola Creek


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 10:05AM
Perfect description of the left.  And we all know that the leftists just will not accept any other way of thinking other than their own.

Lefty left left left lefty lefty leftist


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 10:14AM
Were there protests when Obama won in the streets?

Yes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/anti-obama-protest-at-university-of-mississippi-turns-unruly.html

I think if he'd promised to deport 11 million people, and if he were an admitted sexual assailant, they might have been even worse.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 10, 2016, 11:02AM
Yes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/anti-obama-protest-at-university-of-mississippi-turns-unruly.html

I think if he'd promised to deport 11 million people, and if he were an admitted sexual assailant, they might have been even worse.
And this behavior is to be condemned.

Trump is not an admitted sexual assailant and how many millions has Obama deported in comparison to Trump?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 10, 2016, 11:39AM
... how many millions has Obama deported in comparison to Trump?

We don't know yet.  He hasn't taken over.  But he's promised to deport ALL illegal aliens.  I really doubt he has the structure to do this, though.  Probably he'll be able to deport as many as Obama has.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 10, 2016, 11:44AM
We don't know yet.  He hasn't taken over.  But he's promised to deport ALL illegal aliens.  I really doubt he has the structure to do this, though.  Probably he'll be able to deport as many as Obama has.
Sounds like a good way to force immigration reform. Everyone get registered and come out of the cold, take a coat if you will, and you'll be here legally. There will be plenty of public concern if they were just trying to deport people that were not otherwise breaking laws. If you want to sell amnesty to a quasi-xenophobic electorate, this is the way to do it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 10, 2016, 11:49AM
This is exactly what Obama has been trying to do.  If you keep your nose clean and pay your taxes, we won't deport you.

The Republicans get all hyperbolic about this.

Really, while we shouldn't offer citizenship per se, we should offer alien resident status (green card).  Then they can apply for citizenship and be subject to the same limitations as everybody else, except that there will be some kind of penalty for being an illegal immigrant.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 10, 2016, 11:51AM
Yes, I agree. Trump is taking a different approach and I think we've learned it's best not to write him off. Democrats tend to make the best republicans and vice versa.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 10, 2016, 12:24PM
Yes:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/us/anti-obama-protest-at-university-of-mississippi-turns-unruly.html

I think if he'd promised to deport 11 million people, and if he were an admitted sexual assailant, they might have been even worse.

"Mr. Obama lost to Mitt Romney in Mississippi by a wide margin. But after Mr. Obama was declared the winner in the national race, 30 or 40 people began protesting on the campus, and a rumor spread through Twitter that it was a riot. “The gathering seems to have been fueled by social media, and the conversation should have stayed there,” Dr. Jones said."


This time around, it was in many cities from Ca to NY, in public places and many thousands. Lefists always know how to protest bigly. LOL! I didn't read any further, but did the Republicans defend these protests? Were they supported in the leftist media?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 10, 2016, 12:28PM
This is exactly what Obama has been trying to do.  If you keep your nose clean and pay your taxes, we won't deport you.

The Republicans get all hyperbolic about this.


If the democrats would not have supported sanctuary cities, this topic wouldn't have been as toxic. Obviously, if illegals keep their head under the radar, obey our laws, and otherwise be good citizens, they stand just as good a chance of not being deported as is now.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 12:55PM
If the democrats would not have supported sanctuary cities, this topic wouldn't have been as toxic. Obviously, if illegals keep their head under the radar, obey our laws, and otherwise be good citizens, they stand just as good a chance of not being deported as is now.

I suspect you might be right, but if that's a good outcome, why not make it policy in the first place?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 01:00PM

Trump is not an admitted sexual assailant...
Really. Next time you meet a woman for the first time, grab her genitals. See if you're a sexual assailant or not. I'm not relying on any testimony besides his own.

Quote
...and how many millions has Obama deported in comparison to Trump?
Trump is a reality show star and beauty pageant owner. He hasn't had a chance to deport anyone yet. His net effect on illegal immigration thus far would be the illegal immigrants he hired and maybe his wife.

Criticizing Obama for deporting people is hilarious. He's simultaneously 'opening our borders' and being 'the deporter-in-chief'. Someone's got to be wrong. Eventually, the GOP will arrive at a similar solution--aggressively deport people nearer the borders and who behave poorly--and it's a pretty practical policy. It'll be fine once it's not Obama doing it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 01:18PM
"Mr. Obama lost to Mitt Romney in Mississippi by a wide margin. But after Mr. Obama was declared the winner in the national race, 30 or 40 people began protesting on the campus, and a rumor spread through Twitter that it was a riot. “The gathering seems to have been fueled by social media, and the conversation should have stayed there,” Dr. Jones said."

This time around, it was in many cities from Ca to NY, in public places and many thousands. Lefists always know how to protest bigly. LOL! I didn't read any further, but did the Republicans defend these protests? Were they supported in the leftist media?

[emphasis added--with all your practice, you should have learned how to spell 'leftist' by now! LOL!]

I think there's a different dynamic with a candidate who is widely viewed, including within his party, as a dangerous demagogue and threat to democracy, and who traded in inflammatory rhetoric. At some point, people look back at history and say, "I don't want to be one of the people who stood idle at the rise of Mussolini." The conservative intelligentsia has made a similar stand, although in print.

That's very different from a more normal candidate, from either party.

The protests were lighter for Obama, but by the same token, how many lefty lefty lefty liberal leftist liberals protested when George H.W. Bush won?

Does the leftist media support the protests? I bet they do, but I don't read them. One of the lefty left leftists will have to weigh in on this.

I think you misunderstand the role of respected news publications, because you don't read them. When I read a news story about protests, it doesn't tell me if they're supposed to be bad or good. That's the job of the Daily Caller and Newsmax, because their readers are so stupid tthe writers are afraid they'll fail to arrive at the correct conclusion. They don't want a lot of dumbasses scratching their heads saying, "Was I supposed to like this, or not?"


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 10, 2016, 01:23PM
Really. Next time you meet a woman for the first time, grab her genitals. See if you're a sexual assailant or not. I'm not relying on any testimony besides his own.
Trump is a reality show star and beauty pageant owner. He hasn't had a chance to deport anyone yet. His net effect on illegal immigration thus far would be the illegal immigrants he hired and maybe his wife.

Criticizing Obama for deporting people is hilarious. He's simultaneously 'opening our borders' and being 'the deporter-in-chief'. Someone's got to be wrong. Eventually, the GOP will arrive at a similar solution--aggressively deport people nearer the borders and who behave poorly--and it's a pretty practical policy. It'll be fine once it's not Obama doing it.

If she consents then it's not sexual assault.

Also, he's never deported anyone. In fact he's gone out of his way to hire numerous undocumented immigrants to work on various projects. Sounds like he's taken a hands-on approach to helping immigrants in the past.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 10, 2016, 01:34PM
...Also, he's never deported anyone. In fact he's gone out of his way to hire numerous undocumented immigrants to work on various projects. Sounds like he's taken a hands-on approach to helping immigrants in the past.

He sure has.  Like underpaying them and threatening to have them deported if they complain.  That's what happened to the Polish workers at Trump Tower.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 10, 2016, 01:42PM
He sure has.  Like underpaying them and threatening to have them deported if they complain.  That's what happened to the Polish workers at Trump Tower.
I bet if they hadn't complained we wouldn't have had to build that wall around poland in 2018.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 10, 2016, 01:50PM
... and how many millions has Obama deported in comparison to Trump?

Sorry, but you're not that stupid--you're not fooling anyone.
 
We know Trump will be a uniter as compared to Obama. After all, how many divisive comments has Trump made in a State of the Union Address as compared to Obama!?
 
That doesn't say; Hmmm, good argument!
 
It's says; Hmmm, is he really that vapid, or is he just playing like someone that vapid to make something he somehow thinks is an actual argument? Is there a functional difference?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 10, 2016, 02:55PM
I suspect you might be right, but if that's a good outcome, why not make it policy in the first place?

Because cities are not following the law and have created sanctuary cities. Trump has said that he will withhold federal funding to all cities that remain sanctuary cities. Let's see how this goes, and think the rest will follow.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 03:06PM
Because cities are not following the law and have created sanctuary cities. Trump has said that he will withhold federal funding to all cities that remain sanctuary cities. Let's see how this goes, and think the rest will follow.

But you're proposing something different from Trump. He's saying, explicitly, that he's going to deport every illegal immigrant. He's not saying, "Let's try this first."

Sanctuary cities actually make sense for the cities themselves. Most people don't understand what they are. They don't protect illegal immigrants directly from immigration, but just agree that their local officers won't pick people up solely for immigration purposes. It's very hard to solve crimes in a neighborhood where helping solve the crime might get you deported, so sanctuary cities are essentially a sort of triage process--it's more important to us to catch felons than to catch illegals.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Nov 10, 2016, 03:10PM
But you're proposing something different from Trump. He's saying, explicitly, that he's going to deport every illegal immigrant. He's not saying, "Let's try this first."

Sanctuary cities actually make sense for the cities themselves. Most people don't understand what they are. They don't protect illegal immigrants directly from immigration, but just agree that their local officers won't pick people up solely for immigration purposes. It's very hard to solve crimes in a neighborhood where helping solve the crime might get you deported, so sanctuary cities are essentially a sort of triage process--it's more important to us to catch felons than to catch illegals.

There you go getting all factual again. Won't you learn? Facts are irrelevant.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Nov 10, 2016, 03:13PM
There you go getting all factual again. Won't you learn? Facts are irrelevant.


For liberals, that's true.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 03:22PM
If she consents then it's not sexual assault.

Quote
He was talking about molesting a woman immediately upon meeting her. What form would the consent take? A come-hither look?
Trump: Yeah, that’s her. With the gold. I better use some Tic Tacs just in case I start kissing her. You know, I’m automatically attracted to beautiful — I just start kissing them. It’s like a magnet. Just kiss. I don’t even wait. And when you’re a star, they let you do it. You can do anything.

Bush: Whatever you want.

Trump: Grab ’em by the *****. You can do anything.

You'll notice "I don't even wait." Sorry, but that's sexual assault.

Quote
Also, he's never deported anyone. In fact he's gone out of his way to hire numerous undocumented immigrants to work on various projects. Sounds like he's taken a hands-on approach to helping immigrants in the past.

You're being trollish here, but I'll bite. He used immigration law to get illegal immigrants to work for substandard wages and sometimes for free. He's never deported anyone himself because, like any private citizen, he hasn't had the authority to do so. Taking him at his word, he'll deport 11 million people.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: growlerbox on Nov 10, 2016, 07:31PM
For liberals, that's true.

Geez.  I thought even you would be above the Peewee Herman gambit.

Anyone else missing ronkny?!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 07:50PM
For liberals, that's true.

Yeah, liberals! You tell 'em, little buddy!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 07:51PM
Geez.  I thought even you would be above the Peewee Herman gambit.

Anyone else missing ronkny?!

No.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 10, 2016, 08:01PM
...
Anyone else missing ronkny?!

Nor am I missing snorsworthy.

Or any of a number of trolls we have banned in the past.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Nov 10, 2016, 09:14PM
.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Nov 11, 2016, 05:20AM
400 words is often nowhere close to adequate...

President Trump

I can admit when I am wrong. When the undereducated, angry, old white guys drove Britain off the cliff with their Brexit vote, I said there weren’t enough of them left in this country to do it here. I was wrong. They, coupled with GOP voter suppression efforts (turnout was the lowest in a Presidential election so far in this century) aimed this country right off the same cliff by electing Donald Trump.

For the second time this century, the person being sworn in as POTUS will NOT be the person voted for by the most Americans. The last time it happened, we got the worst President in my lifetime, if not ever. This time we get a xenophobic, misogynistic, lying, cheating, race-baiting, hate-mongering con-man and demagogue.

Those who supported him claimed to want to “blow up” the establishment in Washington, but then they returned virtually all of that establishment to their positions in the Congress, which is where the real problems are. At least now, when the wheels come off, and they WILL come off, it is inevitable, there will be no question who, and what party, are responsible. We can only pray that when it happens this loose cannon we elected doesn’t blow up the world.

Now we hear many supporters of the Donald suggesting “the ugly election campaigns are over, it’s time for us to put aside our differences and support our new President”. I agree. The Dems should give President Trump all of the support and respect that the GOP gave President Obama, who was elected, twice, by huge majorities of the American people. They should also take their lead from Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and insist that a 4-4 SCOTUS remains acceptable and stonewall any attempts to fill the vacant seat for the foreseeable future.

I don’t expect any of that is likely to happen. Unlike the GOP, Democrats, for the most part, are mature adults who have an actual interest in governing. It is not in their nature to be the obstructionist party we have seen the GOP be for the last 8 years.

I do expect to see the Federal tax code and budget look much like that of Kansas. I expect to see the deficit and debt explode again. Social safety net programs will be further shredded, and income inequality will sharply accelerate. Strap in. It’s going to be a rough ride.





Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 11, 2016, 06:59AM
Nor am I missing snorsworthy.

Or any of a number of trolls we have banned in the past.
I don't think snors was a troll so much as someone who didn't roll with the PP punches very well and couldn't resist snide addendums to otherwise reasonable points.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Molefsky on Nov 11, 2016, 07:01AM
When the undereducated, angry, old white guys...
You misspelled "white women and a higher percentage of latino and african american voters than Romney got while the urban vote underperformed for Hillary".


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 11, 2016, 07:13AM
I don't think snors was a troll so much as someone who didn't roll with the PP punches very well and couldn't resist snide addendums to otherwise reasonable points.

Neither Snors nor Ronk are trolls.  I believe you identified what their problem (and a few other ex-posters who voluntarily withdrew from this Board) was.  Their opinions are fine, but their tireless pontificating to those of us who disagree was the problem.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 11, 2016, 10:23AM
Neither Snors nor Ronk are trolls.  I believe you identified what their problem (and a few other ex-posters who voluntarily withdrew from this Board) was.  Their opinions are fine, but their tireless pontificating to those of us who disagree was the problem.

I think it's pretty safe to say other factors aggravated the problems at issue too though. It's unlikely the aggravating factors would have earned vacations on their own, and neither would just prolific posting, or even prolific opinionated posting. It was the combination.
 
I think it's reasonable to consider this combination of factors trollish, the patterns of posting trolling, and those responsible trolls though. It's debatable, but the results were certainly trollish, so it seems if they technically weren't trolls but their behaviors were the cause of decidedly trollish results, there's a problem with the definition with which you're working.
 
And no, I don't miss them, personally. I do miss a more sober, well considered conservative point of view in here though. PM comes fairly close--he's got the sober and well considered part down in spades, but I'm not sure he's really conservative in today's US (not sure that's a very good gauge either though--seems we just made it pretty clear it's not, actually). I would be sincerely jazzed to see the vacationing pair get past that combination of issues and be welcomed back (presumably to be a reasonably solid conservative voice contributing to a more healthy social and intellectual climate in here), but there was no indication of any such inclination, which I guess would be one of the aggravating factors.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Nov 11, 2016, 12:08PM
I don't think either of them would meet your criteria, BvB.  They've come back from "vacations" to do exactly the same thing that got them temporary bans.  I really don't want them to leave the regular Forum because each has good information to share in other sections.  Same goes for at least one other person who voluntarily withdrew from these Boards.

I really hate for people to get removed from TTF just because of PP.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: growlerbox on Nov 12, 2016, 10:42AM
In case it wasn't clear, I was merely drawing a rhetorical parallel.  I don't really miss him.   :)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Nov 12, 2016, 11:59AM
In case it wasn't clear, I was merely drawing a rhetorical parallel.  I don't really miss him.   :)

You were clear enough. I thought it was just sarcasm though ... ?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: jakeway1 on Nov 13, 2016, 06:38AM
Quote
When the undereducated, angry, old white guys drove Britain off the cliff with their Brexit vote, I said there weren’t enough of them left in this country to do it here.

True. You need more uneducated inner-city minority groups to get the vote right.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Nov 13, 2016, 01:11PM
True. You need more uneducated inner-city minority groups to get the vote right.

We had 46.9% of our eligible population sit this election out. Only 35% of whites chose not to vote, so, I guess you are right.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Nov 18, 2016, 06:10AM
And, now..........this week's column:

Accountability Trumps Hate
In her ground-breaking book, “On Death and Dying”, Elisabeth Kubler-Ross theorized there are 5 stages of grief following the death of a loved one. They are; Denial, Anger, Bargaining, Depression, and Acceptance. For many in this country, this month’s Presidential election elicited many of these same responses.

On election night, and the morning after, denial was rampant, “This can’t be happening”, or, “Are we really this stupid?”. So many of us wanted so badly for it not to be true.

But, alas, it is, and that made us angry. Facebook and other social media exploded with incendiary MEME’s and hate rhetoric from both sides. Many took to the streets in protest.

Then the bargaining kicked in. “Maybe we should give him a chance”, “maybe he won’t govern on the hate-filled rhetoric he campaigned on”. But, that is just too depressing to even contemplate, so we, as a country have moved on into accepting that this is real, and, for better or worse, we now have President “the Donald” for the next four years.

But, HEY, as bad as it seems right now, our country did not die with this election, though it does signify a very sick society. So, forget the bargaining and depression, let go of the denial, live with the acceptance, and grab hold of the justifiable, righteous anger with both hands.

Take that anger and turn it into action. Action that will make sure this administration is accountable and not allowed to turn our country into the dark, masochistic fantasy vision the Trump campaign used to get so many poorly informed Americans to vote for it.

Sounds good, right? But, what action? Don’t worry, I have suggestions. On the morning after the election I posted it would be a good day to join the ACLU, or the Southern Poverty Law Center, or NOW. I did, and that is still a great idea.

But, someone forwarded me a link to a group calling itself “We’re His Problem Now”. This group advocates weekly calls by all Americans, from all political persuasions, to their Representatives. They offer hot button issues from which to choose, scripts should one need them, phone numbers and contact info for every member of Congress, and a “weekly call to action” to coordinate accountability.

This is the best response I have seen yet. It takes 5-10 minutes a week. Their link is:

 https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/174f0WBSVNSdcQ5_S6rWPGB3pNCsruyyM_ZRQ6QUhGmo/htmlview?usp=sharing&sle=true#

Accountability Trumps Hate!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Dec 02, 2016, 07:23AM
Took Thanksgiving week off. Now that the dust is settling......

Drain the Swamp

Well, as far as I can tell, the President-elects concept of “draining the swamp” is that you first fill it with the biggest, most predatory snakes and alligators you can find. His list of appointees and nominees provide little hope he is going to govern in a manner any different than he campaigned.

The appointment of Steve Bannon as Presidential Adviser is truly ugly. Many have called him a racist or white supremacist. I suspect he is neither. He is something even worse.

Bannon appears an amoral, “ends justify the means” actor in the mold of Dick Cheney. His situational ethics are what allowed him to use the Alt-Right as a weapon to stir up hate and resentment to get an angry base to the polls. They were nothing but a tool to someone who has actually said, “Darkness is good. Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power”. This is the man in control of the President-elect’s right ear.

Whispering in his left ear is his choice for National Security Adviser, Gen. Michael Flynn. He has a reputation for being both an excellent intelligence officer, having run Defense Intelligence Agency (not well, he was fired by Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper in 2014), and as an erratic and abusive superior who is “right-wing nutty” according to Colin Powell. By my reading, he seems to be quite good at tactics, but is sorely lacking in capacity for strategic thought.

Flynn is certainly, as one would expect of a warrior general, aggressive. HE has tweeted “Fear of Muslims is RATIONAL”, and linked to a site claiming “Islam… wants 80% of humanity enslaved or exterminated.

He’s been chummy with Vladimir Putin, and rejected the consensus of the intelligence community that Russia was actively hacking to influence the outcome of our election. Neither he nor Bannon require the checks and balances of Senate confirmation, no matter the rubber stamp that is likely to be in this administration. Scary stuff.

The President-elect’s choices for positions requiring that rubber stamp are no better. An Attorney General who was unable to achieve conformation by a GOP committee for a judgeship because of racial issues in his past, a Sec. of Education who has spent a lifetime working to privatize public education, and a Sec. Treasury who made billions forclosing on over 36,000 Americans in the housing crisis.

The swamp has got a whole bunch of new predators.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Dec 02, 2016, 10:46PM
Russ
I think we misunderstood the method. He's going to drain the swamp by strip mining the swamp for all it's worth. Sort of like "We had to destroy the village..." "We had to destroy the government to save it from the rot of socialism."

Duff


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Dec 09, 2016, 06:18AM
Things just keep getting uglier..........

Lt. General Flynn

It is difficult to figure out whether the incoming administration is Orwellian, Kafkaesque, or some horribly toxic mélange of the two. With each succeeding week the reality in this country takes ever more steps into the bizarre and macabre.

Earlier this week a NC man entered a Washington, DC pizza restaurant bearing an assault rifle and fired a shot at an employee. Thankfully he missed and was taken into custody. He claimed to be “self-investigating” a fake news story that claimed the restaurant was the center of a child-sex ring being run by Hillary Clinton.

Of course, the concept is absurd on the face of it. But it is only one of literally millions of fake news stories and far-fetched conspiracy theories whose proliferation had such a negative impact on our recent election.

50 years of right wing vilification of established media sources as being liberally slanted because they report facts provided fertile ground for he propagation of these sites and stories, and created an abundant audience for them in our “post-truth” society.

And now, while, thankfully, no one was injured or killed in this particular incident, it is highly likely more episodes of a similar nature will occur. And, that is scary.

But, what should really scare the bejeezus out of you, and I want you to think about this long and hard, is that one of the prime purveyors of these wild, obviously fantastical absurdities has been appointed by our President-elect to be his National Security Advisor. That’s right, the person who will be responsible for advising the President of the United States about the state of the world and the validity and degree of the threats this country faces traffics in these outlandish suppositions.

Shortly before the election, Lt. General Michael Flynn tweeted a reference to a fake news site, truepundit.com stating – “U decide – NYPD blows whistle on new Hillary Emails: Money Laundering, Sex Crimes w Children, etc….MUST READ!”. The pizzeria story had morphed from another planted by Breitbart (previously run by the PEOTUS’s Senior Adviser) alleging Clinton campaign manager John Podesta participated in satanic rituals, drinking blood and other bodily fluids. Flynn tweeted a link to this story as well.

According to Politico, after a review of Flynn’s twitter account, the general has pushed “dubious factoids at least 16 times since Aug. 9”.

Folks, this isn’t Orwell or Kafka. It’s real, and it’s really very scary.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Dec 09, 2016, 06:30AM
And it keeps going on.

He nominated a Climate Change Denier and lawyer to the Oil industry to head the EPA.

He nomnated Dr. Ambien to be HUD Secretary just because he grew up in a slum (and now doesn't support assistance for bright people to get a good education just like he did).

The number of retired Generals and Admirals in his Cabinet make it look like a Banana Republic Junta.  I guess he wasn't kidding when he said "I love Generals".


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Dec 09, 2016, 07:04AM
This is funny.

there have been countless incidents of terrorism in our country, and the liberals don't seem too concerned(workplace violence, etc), but one incident of a stupid person, and all Hail breaks loose(and of course it's the fake news).

CNN and all the mainstream media have been publishing fake news for the last 30 years.  :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Dec 09, 2016, 07:13AM
I didn't particularly think it was funny when the guy shot up the pizza parlor.  Whether he was looking for a Clinton child sex ring or Dick Cheney it was not acceptable.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Dec 09, 2016, 07:17AM

CNN and all the mainstream media have been publishing fake news for the last 30 years.  :evil:


Well, liberally biased news. But, that would be because, as Stephen Colbert so accurately pointed out, "facts have such a liberal bias."


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Dec 09, 2016, 07:20AM
Well, liberally biased news. But, that would be because, as Stephen Colbert so accurately pointed out, "facts have such a liberal bias."

LOL!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Dec 09, 2016, 07:34AM
Well, liberally biased news. But, that would be because, as Stephen Colbert so accurately pointed out, "facts have such a liberal bias."

I think you may have to explain that to some in here.
 
 ...
 
I'm not joking.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Dec 09, 2016, 08:14AM
"facts have such a liberal bias." (to liberals)

That explains a lot right there. Emphasis added to make it a true statement.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Dec 09, 2016, 08:54AM
Well, liberally biased news. But, that would be because, as Stephen Colbert so accurately pointed out, "facts have such a liberal bias."

One of the strongest indicators as to whether a viewpoint is sound is all about Occam's Razor--whose concept is simpler and explains more facts better, and who's inserting epicycles upon epicycles in order to try and force the facts into their model and who accepts the data and goes with ellipses--that sort of thing.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Dec 09, 2016, 09:33AM
So did Occam's Razor (Ockham's Razor) give him a close shave?  Or was that the Medieval portraitists who did that for him? :evil:

Actually, the issue is (as pointed out in another thread) that there are many here who will accept any fact (however outrageous) that confirms their world view and reject any fact (however logical) that disagrees with it.  Note that I am not talking about the veracity of these facts, however oxymoronic that may sound.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Dec 09, 2016, 10:29AM
This is funny.

there have been countless incidents of terrorism in our country, and the liberals don't seem too concerned(workplace violence, etc), but one incident of a stupid person, and all Hail breaks loose(and of course it's the fake news).

Do you even care if what you say makes sense? Can you give me evidence that 'liberals' don't care about terrorism or workplace violence? Just because someone has different political views than you doesn't mean that every bad thing you can think about them is true. Grow up.

Your take on this story is amazing, even for you. A fake news conspiracy story was started about this man's business involving human trafficking and sexual torture of children. He received, and continues to receive, death threats on a daily basis. The denouement of this ugly story is a guy firing live ammunition in the restaurant as guests and employees flee. Your encapsulization: one incident of a stupid person.

Every time you post something like this, you go down in everyone's estimation.

Glad you think this is funny. You often take a high hand on morality, but this reveals your own. I'm quite certain you wouldn't think it was funny if it were your business instead of someone else's. At least you're enjoying it. Must be those good Christian morals, laughing at other people's tragedy.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: growlerbox on Dec 09, 2016, 11:06AM

Every time you post something like this, you go down in everyone's estimation.


This is no longer possible.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Dec 16, 2016, 06:13AM
ANother week, another deadline.....

Bigger Than Watergate?

We are in the middle of what may turn out to be the single most explosive and dangerous political scandal in the history of this country. Sorting it out is going to require a truly herculean, bi-partisan effort and in-depth investigation. Sadly, I do not hold out much hope for that being accomplished with the “party before country” GOP in control.

For months, we have been hearing of intelligence reports of Russian attempts to subvert our electoral process. These efforts involved planting of fake stories on the internet, attempts to access voter rolls, and cyber attacks against political parties and institutions.

The CIA is now reporting that these efforts were aimed at aiding the Trump campaign to defeat Hillary Clinton, and that Vladimir Putin was personally involved. There is evidence of surrogates and advisers to the Trump campaign visiting Russia and meeting with known Russian intelligence operatives.

Of course, the Trump transition team vociferously denies all these allegations, but, fortunately, as more details are exposed, it is becoming isolated in so doing. More and more senior Republicans are getting on the patriot’s band wagon and demanding a full and open investigation. One would hope that investigation is put in the hands of an independent commission like the one impaneled after 9-11.

But, the Russian angle is only one factor needing to be unraveled. It is no surprise to anyone the Russians would do anything possible to destabilize any western democracy. The “Bigliest” danger to our democracy and our institutions is the placing of its thumb on the scale by the FBI.

There is credible evidence a rogue cabal of agents in the FBI intentionally sought to scuttle the electoral hopes of the Clinton campaign. While leaking information to top Trump adviser, Rudy Giuliani, they sandbagged Director Comey by withholding information from him, putting him in a lose/ lose position over the Weiner/ Abedin laptop.

It is also clear the FBI knew about Russian interference as early as August/ September, but no public announcement of it was made, while much public comment was made, at the time it would do the most damage, about the Clinton emails. Emails that ended up having ZERO criminal relevance.

The most powerful law enforcement agency in this country using its influence to sway an election is a story far bigger and more important than Russia or Watergate. This investigation needs to be deep and thorough.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Dec 30, 2016, 06:11AM
Took Christmas week off. Heading into the new year.......

The Pusherman

There is no better example of the destruction the baby-boomer generation has wrought on American society than the explosion of power “Big Pharma” has experienced in our era. One need only watch commercial television for an hour or so to be bombarded with the evidence.

It’s not where we started. Our post-adolescent awakening into the adult world was defined by an un-popular, unnecessary war halfway around the world that many of our generation were drafted to fight. We rebelled, taking to the streets and eschewing many of the standards and traditions of preceding generations.

Music was one avenue we used to express our disdain for the world as it existed. Perhaps no band came closer to writing an anthem for our generation than did Steppenwolf, with their iconic, “Born to Be Wild”. They also told our story with another, “The Pusherman”.

The story recognized, as the country is slowly, finally, the difference between “grass” and hard drugs. Telling it like it is……

“You know I've seen a lot of people
walking around with tombstone in their eyes
But the pusher don't care, ah
if you live or if you die….

You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
with a lot of grass in his hand
Ah but the pusher is a monster
good god he's not a natural man….”

But, this column isn’t about drugs. IT is about how we, the boomer generation, when we became the majority voting bloc in this country, gave the country our parents and grandparents had built to the right wing and the corporations that own it.

       We elected Reagan. He stopped the enforcement of the Sherman Act, which gave the government some control over the monopolistic tendencies of corporations. HE also began the systematic disassembly of the American Labor movement. Both are major factors in the globalization and income inequality that has so many Americans so angry.

We now have an epidemic of prescription opioid abuse in this country. Doctors have been, at the behest of “Big Pharma”, handing them out like candy for years now. Thousands of lives are destroyed, or lost, to this tragedy every year.

But, what do we see from “Big Pharma”? Ubiquitous TV ads for a myriad of drugs. Toenail Fungus? Erectile dysfunction? Baldness? Etc., etc., etc.? We have a drug for that. Oh, please disregard the 500 contraindications or side effects.

"God Damn, goddam, the Pusherman!"


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jan 02, 2017, 11:43AM
I did the last coulumn on deadline and wasn't happy with it. Because of the holiday, I got a chance for a do over........

The Pusherman

There is no better example of the destruction the baby-boomer generation has wrought on American society than the explosive power of “Big Pharma” in our era. One need only watch commercial television for an hour to be bombarded with the evidence.

It’s not where we started. Our post-adolescent awakening into the adult world was defined by an un-popular, unnecessary war halfway around the world that many of our generation were drafted to fight. We rebelled, taking to the streets and eschewing many of the standards and traditions of preceding generations.

Music was one avenue we used to express our disdain for the world as it existed. Perhaps no band came closer to writing an anthem for our generation than did Steppenwolf, with their iconic, “Born to Be Wild”. They also told our story with another, “The Pusherman”.

The story recognized, as the country is slowly, the difference between “grass” and hard drugs. Telling it like it is……
“You know I've seen a lot of people
walking around with tombstone in their eyes
But the pusher don't care, ah
if you live or if you die….
You know the dealer, the dealer is a man
with a lot of grass in his hand
Ah but the pusher is a monster
good god he's not a natural man….”

But, this column isn’t really about drugs. It is about how we, the boomer generation, gave this country, through the people we elected, over to the corporations and the >.01%. “Big Pharma” is a perfect example.

Advertisements for pharmaceuticals were not allowed on network TV until the people we elected allowed it. “Big Pharma” has paid vast sums of money to deny Medicare and the VA the right to bargain collectively for better drug prices, leading to us subsidizing drugs in countries with single payer systems. That’s why is it cheaper for Americans to cross into Canada to fill prescriptions.

We have an epidemic of prescription opioid abuse in this country. Doctors have been, at the behest of “Big Pharma”, handing them out like candy for years now. Thousands of lives are destroyed, or lost, to this tragedy every year.

So, what do we see from “Big Pharma”? Ubiquitous TV ads for a myriad of drugs. Toenail Fungus? Erectile dysfunction? Baldness? Etc., etc., etc.? We have a drug for that. Oh, please disregard the 500 contraindications and side effects.

God Damn, goddam, the Pusherman!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jan 06, 2017, 04:46AM
I guess folks are in political withdrawal these days. THat is understandable. However, the rock rolls on, so.......

KARMA

Karma is an ancient Sanskrit concept that, literally, translates as “act”, “action”, or “word”. There are several well-used clichés that describe how the Buddhist/ Hindu law works.

“What goes around, comes around.”

“For every action there is an equal, and opposite, reaction.”

And, most appropriate, “You reap what you sow”.

As the GOP takes the reins of unified government in this country there are likely to be some massive doses of Karma experienced throughout this country. It will not be pretty.

For 6 years the GOP has vilified the ACA (Obamacare), slandering it with unending spin, distortions, and out right lies. They have used it like a cudgel to inflame their base. 60 times they sought to embarrass the sitting President by voting to repeal it, wasting thousands of hours of Congressional time and millions of dollars of taxpayer money, knowing it was safe and they could not really get rid of it.

Now, they are, as Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described it, like the dog that caught the bus. They do not know quite what to do.

You see, the truth of the ACA is that it is a pretty damn good law. Sure, it has some flaws. With a loyal opposition party those could have been fixed over the last 6 years. But fixing the law is not something that can be done overnight, and the GOP has painted themselves into the corner of having to repeal it immediately or risk an uprising of their ill-informed base.

That’s karma in and of itself. But, the true karma will be experienced by those in their base who are going to be drastically affected, in a negative way, by a repeal unless the GOP finds a way to do it without really doing it.

18 GOP Governors, many in states that used the ACA to expand Medicaid, are up for re-election in 2018. If millions of their constituents lose coverage due to repeal, the backlash could, and should, be devastating.

The ACA has a clause guaranteeing coverage to coal miners suffering from Black Lung Disease. That goes away with repeal. Those coal miners voted overwhelmingly for Drumpf and the GOP. That’s karma.

The GOP has put itself between a rock and a hard place over Obamacare. Based on their actions in the first day of the new Congress, it’s hard to see them doing anything but getting squashed.

KARMA!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jan 09, 2017, 11:06AM
I am just seething over the blatant hypocrisy shown by Mitch McConnell.  In 2009 he demanded that ALL of Obama's appointees make financial disclosures and be vetted by the Ethics Committee before consideration.  Now it's 2017 and it's a White Conservative making the appointments and suddenly these financial disclosures are nowhere near as important.  Even though the appointees appear to have more conflicts of interest than any of Obama's.

I think the guy guilty of treason is McConnell.

Grr...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jan 09, 2017, 11:20AM
I am just seething over the blatant hypocrisy shown by Mitch McConnell.  In 2009 he demanded that ALL of Obama's appointees make financial disclosures and be vetted by the Ethics Committee before consideration.  Now it's 2017 and it's a White Conservative making the appointments and suddenly these financial disclosures are nowhere near as important.  Even though the appointees appear to have more conflicts of interest than any of Obama's.

I think the guy guilty of treason is McConnell.

Grr...

All of them flip their views. Is that treason? How many of Obama's cabinet picks were confirmed?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Jan 10, 2017, 12:05PM
All of them flip their views. Is that treason? How many of Obama's cabinet picks were confirmed?

They were confirmed because they passed Ethics investigations. why is that suddenly unimportant? Conflict of interest disclosures aren't binding on the President, but they are binding on his cabinet members, and they haven't made them. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jan 10, 2017, 01:10PM
They were confirmed because they passed Ethics investigations. why is that suddenly unimportant? Conflict of interest disclosures aren't binding on the President, but they are binding on his cabinet members, and they haven't made them. It's not just a good idea, it's the law.

Well, then, they won't get confirmed. Right?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Jan 10, 2017, 01:14PM
Who knows?  With this congress and this president-elect, anything could happen.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Jan 10, 2017, 06:06PM
Well, then, they won't get confirmed. Right?

Wrong. The financial disclosures won't affect the confirmation hearings if they're not available. The need to be available prior to the hearings, not just prior to the votes, just as McConnell said when the shoe was on the other foot.

The issue is that it's unfair to let the nominees hold off on completing the disclosures prior to the confirmations sessions. There's no purpose to that delay other than to obscure potential chicanery and conflict of interest.

While it's true that the ethics paperwork might be turned in before the final vote, it won't be available to the people questioning the applicants. Your argument is a little like saying, As long as the evidence is disclosed before the jury votes, it doesn't matter if the attorneys have it to conduct their case. McConnell insisted on that standard before, and he was right then.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: elmsandr on Jan 10, 2017, 06:38PM
Well, in more fun news.. the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.  The rain in Russia, however...

Cheers,
Andy


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Jan 10, 2017, 10:57PM
Well, in more fun news.. the rain in Spain falls mainly on the plain.  The rain in Russia, however...

Cheers,
Andy

Pure gold...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jan 11, 2017, 04:37AM
Amazing what, and how much, the FBI knew as far back as August, and yet all they released was the unfounded info on Clinton. I loved the back and forth between Comey and Angus King in the Intelligence Hearing yesterday:

FBI director: “We never confirm or deny a pending investigation.”

Senator: “The irony of your making that statement here, I cannot avoid.”


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jan 13, 2017, 05:11AM
This week's effort. 400 words is so inadequate.

THANKS, Obama

This week ends the most consequential Presidency in a generation, maybe since FDR. President Obama leaves office with an approval rating higher than anyone in the last 100 years other than Bill Clinton and FDR, and FDR had to die to get his.

When he walked in the door of the White House he was handed the worst economy any American President had faced since FDR after the GOP had caused the Great Depression. As he leaves the White House, the economy he is handing off is amongst the strongest any President has passed on in a generation or more.

An economy that was shedding 750,000 jobs a month on his inauguration has now experienced 75 straight months of positive job growth, a feat unequaled in our history. There have been 15.8 million jobs created during the Obama administration. Unemployment, which topped out at over 10% during the Bush’ Great Recession, is now 4.7% and hourly wages have grown by more than 3% in this last year.

While the recovery has been slow, it has been steady. It is now one of the longest on record, and has significantly outpaced the recoveries around the world. The $1.4 Trillion deficit Obama was handed has been reduced every year of his administration, and is now at its lowest since before the recession.



The stock market was in freefall as Obama took office, bottoming out below 7,000. It is currently hovering right at 20,000, an increase of better than 200%. Corporate profits are setting annual records every year.

Then, there’s Obamacare. It has reduced the uninsured rate by more than 50%, with more than 20,000 Americans having attained insurance under its umbrella.

On the domestic front, Obama ended DADT and marriage equality is the law of the land. Banks are no longer middle men in college loan programs. Illegal immigration is at a 60 year low and the border is more secure than it has been in decades despite GOP refusal to pass comprehensive reform.

Bin Laden and Qaddafi are dead, Mubarek is gone, there are no more chemical weapons in Syria, and ISIS has lost more than 50% of the territory it once claimed. There is a new SALT treaty, and Iran has been pushed from the brink of nuclear status.

This list is the tip of the Obama iceberg. History will rank him amongst our best Presidents ever.

Thanks, Obama!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Jan 13, 2017, 05:27AM
...

Then, there’s Obamacare. It has reduced the uninsured rate by more than 50%, with more than 20,000 Americans having attained insurance under its umbrella.

...


I think you missed a comma and 3 more zeroes.  It's 20,000,000 more Americans.  Otherwise, nice column.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jan 13, 2017, 06:19AM
To be clear on a few things...
When he walked in the door of the White House he was handed the worst economy any American President had faced since FDR after the GOP had caused the Great Depression. As he leaves the White House, the economy he is handing off is amongst the strongest any President has passed on in a generation or more.
Neither the president nor congress has had much of an impact on the economy for the positive, with both being locked in a log jam of continuing resolutions to keep the budget going, as they can't agree on anything else. That log jam has at times been listed as one of the greatest threats to the economy though.

An economy that was shedding 750,000 jobs a month on his inauguration has now experienced 75 straight months of positive job growth, a feat unequaled in our history. There have been 15.8 million jobs created during the Obama administration. Unemployment, which topped out at over 10% during the Bush’ Great Recession, is now 4.7% and hourly wages have grown by more than 3% in this last year.
Again, log jam. Neither the president nor congress has had much of an impact for improvement here.

While the recovery has been slow, it has been steady. It is now one of the longest on record, and has significantly outpaced the recoveries around the world. The $1.4 Trillion deficit Obama was handed has been reduced every year of his administration, and is now at its lowest since before the recession.
And the lessening budget deficit is due to mostly two things - an improving economy, the sequester. That said, we pay less money into federal programs, but we also get far less from them with most being understaffed and under supported and their budgets cut in the most unfriendly or useful of ways.

The stock market was in freefall as Obama took office, bottoming out below 7,000. It is currently hovering right at 20,000, an increase of better than 200%. Corporate profits are setting annual records every year.
Which actually indicates a far more damaging and dangerous bubble that no one has really had the gumption to take on before it pops.


Then, there’s Obamacare. It has reduced the uninsured rate by more than 50%, with more than 20,000 Americans having attained insurance under its umbrella.
Yes, though it has also failed to control costs as was one of the big intentions. So while we may have more insured people, they actually pay much more for the insurance and will still likely be thousands out of pocket if needed to be used. This at a time when few people have thousands in savings to pay...


On the domestic front, Obama ended DADT and marriage equality is the law of the land.
That was the supreme court, really.

Banks are no longer middle men in college loan programs.
Oh, they're still in there. Have no doubt.

Illegal immigration is at a 60 year low and the border is more secure than it has been in decades despite GOP refusal to pass comprehensive reform.
That's mostly been a result of a poor economy for low paid working class. Much less incentive to come over for jobs if the jobs aren't there.

Bin Laden and Qaddafi are dead, Mubarek is gone, there are no more chemical weapons in Syria, and ISIS has lost more than 50% of the territory it once claimed. There is a new SALT treaty, and Iran has been pushed from the brink of nuclear status.
Syria is also a major mess, with the country worse off now than before, and so many people fleeing that entire continents have had issues with the major influx of refugees. They don't need chemical weapons... syrian and russian forces openly and brazenly commit warcrimes against the civilian population and no one, especially us, has any desire to stop it. ISIS didn't exist before Obama in any real way, so the territory they hold is far more than what they had before... even if down from highs.

Not to mention that politics is at a zero game, partisan, all time record high with log-jam being the theme of congress during his tenure, especially the latter half.


He has grown to appear to have more of an affable public character, and often pushes in directions we need to go, but at the same time, he has been handicapped by a dysfunctional congress and zero sum politics and hasn't been able to achieve all that much through his own work or policies.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jan 20, 2017, 05:50AM
A truly dark, sad day for America. THis week's column......

Ringling Brothers

Well, the torch has been passed. After 146 years, the Ringling Brothers Circus has closed down. It would seem they realized there was no way they could compete with the circus the Drumpf Administration brought to town.

The Carnival Barker in Chief has assembled a cabinet of clowns, strong men, acrobats, and sharks to dismantle what remains of the New Deal progressive core that built the strongest economy and the largest middle class the world has ever seen. Instead, we are in for the largest kleptocracy in history as this collection of self-serving billionaires suck what is left of the productive soul of this country into the pockets of those at the top.

His “strong men”, Mattis, Kelly, and Pompeo, are the least objectionable and most appropriately qualified appointees in the lot. One must hope they are competent and strong enough to control the absurdities sure to emanate from the Borneo Wild Man he has made his National Security Advisor.

The acrobats include Elaine Chao, wife of Senate Majority leader Mitch McConnell (Only Dick Cheney has ever more enriched himself at the public trough than these two) at transportation, and Nikki Hailey as Ambassador to the UN. Hailey is actually a quite competent politician, but has ZERO foreign policy chops.

After spending the entire campaign attacking his opponents for ties to Goldman-Sachs, Drumpf has appointed SIX, count em, 6, executives from the company to his shark tank. Also swimming there are:
An AG who doesn’t support voting rights
A HHS Sec who buys stocks and then presents laws that will benefit those companies.
A Labor Sec who supports automation over human jobs
An EPA head who has sued the agency almost 20 times, and a
Sec State who has flaunted USA policy for years in pursuit of corporate profits.

Which brings us to the clowns. Betsy Devos, picked for education, has donated over $200,000,000 to GOP candidates, including the max to the Senators on the committee confirming her. She has spent her lifetime trying to privatize Public Schools, and wants to use our schools to “Build God’s Kingdom”.

Ben Carson to run HUD? Carson is a smart and decent man, but in this position he will be a fish with a bicycle.

And, then there’s Rick Perry at the Dept of Energy. How scary is the thought of Rick Perry in charge of our nukes?

Ringling just could not compete.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jan 20, 2017, 08:01AM
I thought that it was fitting that both clown shows are over at the same time. Ringling and Obama. LOL!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Jan 20, 2017, 09:07AM
ROTFL Dusty!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jan 27, 2017, 06:28AM
ALternative Facts

As I write this we are a week into the Drumpf regime, and there is absolutely no sign things are going to be any different, certainly not any better, than the campaign and transition portended. And, that is no “alternative fact”.

From petulant, delusional lies over a matter as insignificant as the size of his…….. inaugural crowd and “millions of illegal votes”, (none of which were for Drumpf), to a deluge of largely meaningless “Executive Memorandums”, not Executive Orders (there is a significant, quantifiable difference), there has been a great flurry of activity resulting in very little of consequence in the real world. Buckle up, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

Perhaps nothing is as enlightening to how the Drumpfian Presidency is going to unfold as the continued idiocy around building a wall on our southern border, to be paid for by Mexico. A campaign promise to his less than critical thinking supporters, one of Drumpf’s first actions was to sign an Executive Memo calling on Congress to find funding to build the boondoggle and then create the sleight-of-hand accounting to make it appear Mexico is paying for it.

And, the GOP (Government of Putin) is falling in line. The same party that could not find money to provide disaster relief for those affected by Hurricane Sandy or the floods in Texas without set asides is all too happy to kiss the backside of their rubber stamp on this issue.

“First off, we’re going to pay for it and front the money,” Speaker Ryan said. When pressed on Mexican payment, he continued, “There are a lot of different ways of getting Mexico to contribute to doing this. There are different ways of defining how exactly they pay for it.” In other words, We pay, and then we “cook the books”.

First of all, walls don’t work. The Chinese built a 13,170 mile long wall to keep out the Mongols. Shortly after its completion the Mongols took over China and ruled there for 1500 years. The Central American answer to our $15 Billion dollar wall will probably be a whole lot of $36 dollar ladders and $12 shovels.

Secondly, talk of the wall is seriously pissing off our third largest trading partner. Mexican President Pena-Nieto proudly stood up to Drumpf’s bullying and cancelled a scheduled visit to the USA next week.

OF course, Drumpf announced the decision as mutual.
Alternative Facts!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jan 27, 2017, 06:34AM
ALternative Facts

As I write this we are a week into the Drumpf regime, and there is absolutely no sign things are going to be any different,...

IOW, we finally got a president that will do what he promised in his campaign!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jan 27, 2017, 06:37AM
IOW, we finally got a president that will do what he promised in his campaign!
Considering over the course of his campaign, Trump promised most sides of most issues... it'd be hard for him NOT to do what he promised at some point. Though he'd still be breaking campaign promises right and left regardless.

The wall is a funny one. How is he going to get mexico to pay for it again? Seems like the Mexican president just cancelled his visit thanks to poor politicking on Trump's part.

Or wait, are we going to start a trade war with our three largest trading partners, and delude ourselves that we won't get hurt by it?

OUR GDP is currently something like 18.5 trillion. Exports make up 1.5 trillion of that, and imports 2.2 trillion. Which basically puts direct trade at 20% of GDP, not to get into downstream impacts. That's a whole lot to screw up right there...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jan 27, 2017, 07:02AM
Considering over the course of his campaign, Trump promised most sides of most issues... it'd be hard for him NOT to do what he promised at some point. Though he'd still be breaking campaign promises right and left regardless.

The wall is a funny one. How is he going to get mexico to pay for it again? Seems like the Mexican president just cancelled his visit thanks to poor politicking on Trump's part.

Or wait, are we going to start a trade war with our three largest trading partners, and delude ourselves that we won't get hurt by it?

OUR GDP is currently something like 18.5 trillion. Exports make up 1.5 trillion of that, and imports 2.2 trillion. Which basically puts direct trade at 20% of GDP, not to get into downstream impacts. That's a whole lot to screw up right there...

I think it's pretty clear who's running the show. LOL!

You guys need to catch a breath!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jan 27, 2017, 07:30AM
I think it's pretty clear who's running the show. LOL!
You lost me after the first two words there, DD. Not so sure you do. ;)



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jan 27, 2017, 07:39AM
You lost me after the first two words there, DD. Not so sure you do. ;)



Thank you for that. I'll think about it.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Jan 27, 2017, 07:44AM
You lost me after the first two words there, DD. Not so sure you do. ;)



Strike one, B0B


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jan 27, 2017, 08:00AM
Guess we should just stick to HAHAHA posts that vaguely mock other posters without saying much else then.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Greg Waits on Jan 27, 2017, 08:00AM
This proposal to pay for a wall using a special tax levied on Mexican imports is not a good idea. It will only penalize US consumers of Mexican imports.

Considering all of Trump's business failings and bankruptcies, it doesn't give me confidence that he has a clue as to what he is doing.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Greg Waits on Jan 27, 2017, 08:02AM
Guess we should just stick to HAHAHA posts that vaguely mock other posters without saying much else then.

Of course there is the 'yeah right' emoticon.   :rolleyes:



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jan 27, 2017, 08:09AM
This proposal to pay for a wall using a special tax levied on Mexican imports is not a good idea. It will only penalize US consumers of Mexican imports.

Considering all of Trump's business failings and bankruptcies, it doesn't give me confidence that he has a clue as to what he is doing.


You have to learn how to read Trump. He is trained to make outrageous demands to start the negotiation process. That serves several purposes. The president of Mexico is already taking heat from his citizens, because the Peso is dropping faster than a rocket surgeon.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Jan 27, 2017, 09:00AM
This proposal to pay for a wall using a special tax levied on Mexican imports is not a good idea. It will only penalize US consumers of Mexican imports.

Considering all of Trump's business failings and bankruptcies, it doesn't give me confidence that he has a clue as to what he is doing.


The price of new construction will be going up if the new 20% tariff passes.  Much of our cement, steel, and gypsum comes from Mexico.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jan 27, 2017, 09:26AM
The price of new construction will be going up if the new 20% tariff passes.  Much of our cement, steel, and gypsum comes from Mexico.

To note, taxing mexican imports would also mean pulling out of NAFTA (and our trade relationship with Canada) in order to add a new domestic tax (which would cause issues with us and the WTO) to pay for a wall even his new cabinet pick for that department says is ineffective and a waste of money. And mexico STILL wouldn't pay for it... We would.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Jan 27, 2017, 12:07PM
The thing that we we have to remember is that any border tax is paid by us.

Immigration from Mexico has slowed to a crawl--it's basically at net zero for quite some time now. So the wall and the border tax are basically huge, messy, costly solutions to a minor, controllable problem, like swatting a fly with a Howitzer.

The Carrier deal is a perfect example. It cost Indiana taxpayers $7 million (that's why Pence didn't make the same deal before, when he could have). In the end it saved fewer jobs than were lost when Ringling Bros. folded.

If Trump's going to keep his promises, he should veto bills that mess with SS and Medicare, provide universal medical coverage, and insist that drug companies negotiate prices with the government. And release his tax returns.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 03, 2017, 06:12AM
Onward and downward.........

Leninist

Well, week two of the Drumpf regime was no better than week one. It would be impossible in this limited venue to list all the disasters wrought on the American people and our government this week, so I will stick to two that are inter-related.

The scarier of the two was the removal of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Principals Committee of the NSC and replacing them with Presidential Strategist Steve Bannon. Bannon has been quoted as saying; “I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

Coupled with the bromance between Drumpf and Putin, and Russia’s involvement in our election this is an ominous turn. Frederick Forsythe nor John LeCarre could devise such a twisted plot.

Early in the week, pandering to the small-minded hate and fear of the typical Drumpf supporter, the President signed an Executive Order “temporarily” banning travel to the United States by ALL citizens from seven Muslim majority countries in the Middle East, and indefinitely suspending the issuance of refugee visas to persons fleeing the conflict in Syria.

As with every action taken by the new administration it was poorly thought out and disastrously implemented. Affected departments were not given advance notice the Order was coming, and the roll out resulted in mass confusion and disruption at airports throughout the USA and around the world. 

Many people with every right to enter the US were detained at airports, denied boarding privileges at airports around the world, or put on flights returning them to their country of origin. The lack of governmental experience in this administration was painfully obvious in this debacle.

This order is a disaster. First of all, there has NEVER BEEN an attack in this country by a person allowed in through the existing vetting process for refugees, NOR FROM ANY of the seven countries listed in the order. The countries that HAVE generated attacks in this country ARE NOT included. Kind of ironic that Drumpf has business dealings in all of them. Coincidence?

Secondly, this order plays directly into the hands of the jihadists of ISIS and Al Qaeda whose main recruiting pitch is that the USA is waging a war against Islam.

You can’t make this stuff up. Lenin would be proud!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Greg Waits on Feb 03, 2017, 07:57AM
Onward and downward.........

Leninist

Well, week two of the Drumpf regime was no better than week one. It would be impossible in this limited venue to list all the disasters wrought on the American people and our government this week, so I will stick to two that are inter-related.

The scarier of the two was the removal of the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the Director of National Intelligence from the Principals Committee of the NSC and replacing them with Presidential Strategist Steve Bannon. Bannon has been quoted as saying; “I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too. I want to bring everything crashing down, and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

Coupled with the bromance between Drumpf and Putin, and Russia’s involvement in our election this is an ominous turn. Frederick Forsythe nor John LeCarre could devise such a twisted plot.

Early in the week, pandering to the small-minded hate and fear of the typical Drumpf supporter, the President signed an Executive Order “temporarily” banning travel to the United States by ALL citizens from seven Muslim majority countries in the Middle East, and indefinitely suspending the issuance of refugee visas to persons fleeing the conflict in Syria.

As with every action taken by the new administration it was poorly thought out and disastrously implemented. Affected departments were not given advance notice the Order was coming, and the roll out resulted in mass confusion and disruption at airports throughout the USA and around the world. 

Many people with every right to enter the US were detained at airports, denied boarding privileges at airports around the world, or put on flights returning them to their country of origin. The lack of governmental experience in this administration was painfully obvious in this debacle.

This order is a disaster. First of all, there has NEVER BEEN an attack in this country by a person allowed in through the existing vetting process for refugees, NOR FROM ANY of the seven countries listed in the order. The countries that HAVE generated attacks in this country ARE NOT included. Kind of ironic that Drumpf has business dealings in all of them. Coincidence?

Secondly, this order plays directly into the hands of the jihadists of ISIS and Al Qaeda whose main recruiting pitch is that the USA is waging a war against Islam.

You can’t make this stuff up. Lenin would be proud!


And Saudi Arabia wasn't included in the ban, yet the 9/11 conspirators were from that there


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Ellrod on Feb 03, 2017, 10:00AM
Closer to home:

"Trump also will halt another of former President Barack Obama’s regulations, hated by the financial industry, that requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients. Trump’s order will give the new administration time to review the change, known as the fiduciary rule."




Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Greg Waits on Feb 03, 2017, 10:14AM
Closer to home:

"Trump also will halt another of former President Barack Obama’s regulations, hated by the financial industry, that requires advisers on retirement accounts to work in the best interests of their clients. Trump’s order will give the new administration time to review the change, known as the fiduciary rule."



Suddenly I am hearing the Twilight Zone theme


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 10, 2017, 06:46AM
THis week's column:

NEVER THE LESS, SHE PERSISTED

“She was warned, she was given an explanation. Never the less, she persisted”.

 

This is how Mitch McConnell justified the muzzling of Elizabeth Warren during the Attorney General conformation hearing of Jeff Sessions. It was a political gaffe history may someday mark as a pivot point in the pendulum swing of American politics.

 

Warren was in the process of reading a letter penned by civil rights icon Coretta Scott King excoriating nominee Sessions to the Senate during his Federal Judgeship confirmation hearing in 1986. A hearing, it should be noted, in which his appointment WAS NOT approved due to racially discriminatory actions he had undertaken as a Federal prosecutor and State Attorney General in Alabama.

 

In muzzling Warren, McConnell invoked Senate Rule XIX which states “no Senator in debate shall, directly or indirectly, by any form of words impute to another Senator or to other Senators any conduct or motive unworthy or unbecoming a Senator.” It’s an obscure rule, more than a century old, and evidenced more in the breach than by its application.

 

AS far as can be remembered, the last time it was invoked was in 1979 during an inconsequential dust-up between two back bench Senators. More recently, it WAS NOT invoked when Senator Ted Cruz called McConnell a liar on the floor of the Senate, or when VP Dick Cheney invited Senator Pat Leahy to perform an impossible sexual act on himself, or when Harry Reid called all the GOP Senators “Puppets” of GW Bush.

 

Amazingly, it was also not invoked, after Warren was censured, when four male Senators read the same letter in the same hearing. It would appear there is something special about Warren to the GOP (Government of Putin) leadership in the Senate. I suspect it is fear.

 

The reality of the episode is, it took an obscure letter from 30 years ago that would have gone largely unnoticed and gave it an immediate viral presence nationally. IT also gave Senator Warren a huge platform from which to espouse her views to an eager audience.

 

One thing we have seen since the inauguration of President Drumpf is the activation and mobilization of women against the long term misogyny demonstrated by Drumpf and his administration. As the old saying goes, “if Mama ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy”.

 

McConnell has inadvertently coined the anthem for the new, Progressive resistance to Drumpfism……

 

“Never the less, She Persisted”.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 17, 2017, 06:02AM
Onward.....

Who's Lying?


This should not shock anyone, but, Donald Trump is lying. The question is, Donald Sr. or Donald Jr? My money is on Drumpf, the elder.

In a long, rambling, Alternate-Fact ™ filled news conference yesterday, President Drumpf stated, "Russia is a ruse. I have nothing to do with Russia. Haven’t made a phone call to Russia in years. Don’t speak to people from Russia. Not that I wouldn’t. I just have nobody to speak to." So, there’s that.

But, in a 2008 speech to a real estate conference in NYC, Donald, the younger, said, “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets. We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” The statements are mutually exclusive. One or the other of them is an out and out lie.

Since the Drumpf’s, and their organization, had no ties to the US government in 2008, and the ties of the Drumpf campaign and administration to the Russian government are under scrutiny today, it would be hard to make a case for it being Donald Jr. who was prevaricating. He had no reason to.

His Dad, on the other hand, is dealing with an ever tightening web of evidence with the potential to blow up into a Constitutional crisis that will make Watergate seem like a shoplifting violation in comparison. One of his prime appointees has already been forced to resign over the issue, and several others are implicated in ongoing reporting.

Of course, the issue could be largely defused with the simple release of Drumpf’s tax returns. Presumably, they would show whether or not connections, and/or indebtedness, exist between Drumpf and the oligarchs of Russia. But, Drumpf continues to refuse to take this action every other President in the modern era has.

And, GOP (Government of Putin) Congressmen in the House have refused to invoke a 1924 law that would allow Congress to review those tax returns in closed session to determine if such conflicts of interest exist. They are too enamored of having a rubber stamp in the White House to put the interests of the American people above those of their party.

The same is true of the GOP (Government of Putin) leadership in the House and Senate, who are refusing to initiate a bi-partisan, select committee to investigate Drumpf’s ties to the Russians. It’s time for an Archibald Cox or Kenneth Starr.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Feb 17, 2017, 10:58AM
I'm sure if he had nothing to hide he'd be very cooperative.  Makes me wonder what he is trying to keep from us.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Feb 24, 2017, 06:25AM
This week's Column......

Projection

“Psychological projection is a theory where people defend themselves against their own unconscious qualities by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others.” (Wikipedia)

 
The best example of this in America today is the White House/ GOP (Government of Putin) claim the protests going on at Congressional town hall meetings are, “a very paid, astro-turf-type movement”. While there is no evidence this is true, it is a perfect description of how the TEA Party was formed.

 
After the drubbing the GOP (not the Government of Putin then) received in the 2008 election, Dick Armey, aided by the unlimited coffers of the Koch brothers, did, indeed, plant the seeds of the TEA Party by organizing and funding the town hall protests against the ACA in the summer of 2009. It was a common occurrence to see buses off-loading protesters who were provided with talking points, often lies like “death panels” and “socialized medicine”, to disrupt the meetings, and create the image of an unhappy electorate.

 
It was a truly manufactured movement that took months to germinate and grow into a political force. But, it worked. It inflamed the low-information base of the GOP (not the Government of Putin then) and turned them out in the 2010 mid-tem elections, reversing the changing balance of power 8 years of the Bush administration had engendered.

 
Today’s GOP (Government of Putin) is projecting that same astro-turf manufacturing onto the massive uprising the election of Drumpf has provoked. Nothing could be further from reality. This is a truly spontaneous eruption of denial and outrage from a populous shocked out of their lethargy by the election of one so unfit for the position.

 
In this case, there are no buses, there are no paid provocateurs, there is no outside funding. There are social media guidelines on how to organize and be effective posted by concerned ex-Congressional staffers, of both parties, and massive interest in how to really “take our country back”.

 
More than 3500 groups have already been formed, with more sprouting up every day, to resist the fascist agenda of the Drumpf regime. The organizational meeting for “Indivisible/ Deland” attracted more than 200 people in our little community.

 
At this point, neither party is in position to seize the energy of this tidal surge. Republicans are goose-stepping behind Drumpf, and the Dems are in complete disarray. But, the movement is real, and it will persist.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 03, 2017, 05:53AM
This week's column...........

Recusal......

Yet another Drumpf surrogate finds himself in hot water over contacts with Russian agents during the recent Presidential campaign. This time it’s newly confirmed AG Jeff Sessions up to his neck in the lobster pot as he was discovered to have had more than one meeting with the Russian Ambassador after he swore, under oath during his confirmation hearing, he had no contacts at all.

 
While the nature of the contacts MAY be innocent and explainable by Sessions’ previous job, his omission of mentioning them during his testimony is troubling, if not actual perjury.  We recently had a President impeached for “lying under oath” about an issue far less significant to national security.

 
Sessions, in an effort to derail criticism, has already recused himself from any investigations involving the Drumpf campaign. Still, calls for his resignation from the spot he holds as the Chief Law Enforcement Official in the country are growing. Whether or not the lie was intentional, it was an untruth, and the AG should be held to the highest standard.

 
Some feel the Democrats “obsession” with the whole Russia issue will not benefit them in the long run when it comes to regaining leverage and control in Congress. They are missing the point.

 
No one can/ will say what ongoing investigations into Drumpf’s ties to Russia are being carried out by the FBI or other US Intelligence agencies, but there is massive digging being done by the free press, our Constitutionally protected protection against government criminality. That is the true issue here.

 
Russia is a long standing geo-political foe of the USA. The current government of Russia is an on-going criminal kleptocracy of massive proportions. Essentially, it’s a Mafia “Family” on steroids with nukes.

 
Drumpf’s ties to the oligarchs that make up the Government of Putin (the real one, not the shadow one the GOP has become) are being slowly and methodically uncovered. It is becoming more and more obvious why Drumpf can not release his tax returns.

 
Drumpf was lucky he never stiffed the wrong people in his shady dealings in NYC. He almost certainly dealt with folks who would have had him beaten and dumped in the East River. Putin, and his henchmen make those folks look like amateurs.

 
Drumpf’s relentless onslaught against the free press in this country is an attempt at deflection. It didn’t work for Nixon, and it won’t work for Drumpf.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 10, 2017, 06:40AM
Going to keep posting them.........

American Health Care Act

Well, the long awaited GOP (Government of Putin) plan to replace the ACA, once they repeal it, has been released, and it is everything one would have expected. It is a disaster for the poor, the sick, and the elderly, and a massive windfall for the wealthy and insurance companies.

What is a surprise is how little support it is garnering from Republicans. There doesn’t seem to be anyone in the party who likes the proposal other than its architects, Speaker Paul Ryan, HHS Sec. Tom Price, and President Drumpf. For many in the GOP (Government of Putin) it still puts too much money into taking care of the least among us.

The House “Freedom” Caucus has openly reviled the plan as “ObamaCare-Lite”. For them, anything less than outright repeal of the ACA is a non-starter, period. They express ZERO concern for the 20 million or so Americans who would lose their insurance the day that happened. Without their support it is highly unlikely Speaker Ryan can whip up the 218 votes he need in the House to pass the legislation.

Republican Governors in states that accepted the Medicaid expansion granted under Obamacare vehemently oppose the new legislation because it will drastically reduce Medicaid funding they have used to benefit the most needy in their states. Those funds would be phased out starting in 2020, replaced by block grants with a cap on the size of the grants.

Former GOP (Government of Putin) Presidential candidate Gov. John Kasich of Ohio put it thusly, “Phasing out Medicaid coverage without a viable alternative is counter-productive and unnecessarily puts at risk our ability to treat the drug addicted, mentally ill, and working poor who now have access to a stable source of care.”

Since the Republicans intent is to pass the law through budgetary reconciliation so it won’t have to meet the 60 vote filibuster avoiding majority in the Senate, they cannot afford to lose the support of any Senators. That said, at least four Republican Senators have already stated they will not support the bill as written. That would make the bill dead on arrival in the Senate.

It’s always been obvious that the GOP (Government of Putin) is masterful at being an obstructionist minority party. It is now equally obvious they are completely incompetent as a governing party. That truly is the best hope for America over these next four years.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 10, 2017, 04:27PM
Hey a free book on the man our "president" admires.
Advisor Bannon says he wants to deconstruct* the Federal government.
This book is about the demise of the Soviet state. Read the introduction and first chapter. The are a good template for how T-rump might deconstuct our government.
DRB
Seola Creek

http://wariscrime.com/new/putins-kleptocracy-owns-russia/
*As a side note deconstructivism was a part of language theory the new left system of analysis on which "politically correct speech" was based...


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: timothy42b on Mar 12, 2017, 12:20PM
Going to keep posting them.........

American Health Care Act

Well, the long awaited GOP (Government of Putin) plan to replace the ACA, once they repeal it, has been released, and it is everything one would have expected. It is a disaster for the poor, the sick, and the elderly, and a massive windfall for the wealthy and insurance companies.

What is a surprise is how little support it is garnering from Republicans. There doesn’t seem to be anyone in the party who likes the proposal other than its architects, Speaker Paul Ryan, HHS Sec. Tom Price, and President Drumpf. For many in the GOP (Government of Putin) it still puts too much money into taking care of the least among us.


I dunno.  Does anybody remember back to the invasion of Iraq?  Congressman after congressman spoke elegantly against the war, then voted for it.  I will be surprised if this doesn't go the same way. 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Mar 23, 2017, 08:35PM
Writing from Bali again.........

Holy Mackeral!

I am once again half a world away from home, enjoying a break from the non-stop ugliness and insanity that has taken over much of everyday life in the US. Fortunately, American politics have little impact on life here, so the embarrassment being an American one might feel visiting other parts of the world (Germany and Britain jump to mind, among many others) is not affecting me here.

Where to even start? I guess that's not really important, because no matter where you start, any discussion about what is going on in the US right now will eventually come around to the elephant in the room; Russia. Until the whole Russia issue is brought fully out into the open, and the legitimacy, or illegitimacy, of the Drumpf administration is fully litigated, nothing else can, or, at least, should, take precedence.

There are many pushing for Democrats to walk away from all Congressional activity, especially the confirmation process for a SCOTUS nominee, until such time as all the Russia issues are resolved. Should a suspected agent of the Russian government be allowed to make a lifetime appointment of a justice to the SCOTUS? It's hard to imagine a sane person thinking it's a good idea.

And the Russian issues are legion in breadth and scope. How deeply have Drumpf and his associates been involved in long term money-laundering activities by Putin and the Oligarchs who have stolen the wealth of the Russian people? Was there open collusion between the Russian government and the Drumpf campaign during the election? Did the Russian weaponization of information technology and subsequent interference in our election rise to the level of acts of war?

The answers to these questions are slowly, but surely, coming to light thanks to the diligent, persistent efforts of members of the much maligned free press. The answers that are being uncovered are not pretty, and seem to be predicting a scandal and Constitutional crisis for this country unequaled in our history. Russia could not have hoped for a better result.

It is incumbent on our elected representatives to set the resolution of these issues as the single most urgent priority in our National interest. Instead, GOP ( Government of Putin) Representatives and Senators appear to be slow walking and impeding Congressional investigations. The Republican chair of the House Intelligence Committee was an inner circle member of the Drumpf campaign. He is anything but an independent investigator. This is too important to be a partisan issue.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Douglas Fur on Mar 29, 2017, 12:35PM
"This is too important for partisan bickering."
Exactly! The national intelligence agencies have agreed that a foreign state has interfered with our election.
The house intelligence committee has broken down into partisan bickering and Nunes has given them all a time out.
Senator McCain has called for an independent investigation. Anyone familiar with my posts knows my politics are about 540° opposed to most of John McCain's but I support his call for a real investigation without prejudice to the outcome. I think anyone who is concerned about the future validity of our elections needs to support Senator McCain's​ call for a thorough investigation. How can the people trust an election when foreign powers can hack and manipulate the outcome?
Please contact your Senators and urge them to support a complete and rigorous investigation.

DRB
Seola Creek.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 08, 2017, 06:38PM
Still in Bali........

Syrian Hypocrisy

President Drumpf launched a largely meaningless and wasteful Tomahawk missile attack on an airbase in Syria Friday morning. It was purportedly in response to the use of chemical weapons by Syrian forces, and Drumpf's reaction to videos of Syrian children affected and/ or killed in the attack. There are more holes in the whole of this affair than there are in a block of high quality Swiss Cheese.

First, and foremost in my mind, is the blatant hypocrisy of Drumpf's crocodile tears over the victims of this horrendous attack. These are the same people he is blocking from escaping the horrors being inflicted on them with his absurd refugee ban.

Then there's the complete reversal of the position he has held since he unleashed a torrent of tweets back in 2013 madly warning President Obama against taking military action in Syria, at a time when it might actually have had an effect, over a chemical attack that killed more than 10 times as many Syrian civilians. Or from just a week ago when Sec. State Tillerson said the future of the Syrian regime would be resolved by the Syrian people.

I find the initial reactions to the raid somewhat puzzling. Of course, knuckle-draggers everywhere are joyous someone is finally "kicking-ass", and GOP (Government of Putin) Congress folks are massively supportive, but even many Democrats are offering tepid praise and support. It's important to remember that in 2013 98 of these same Republicans signed a letter demanding President Obama come to Congress before he take any kind of military action in Syria. Then, when he did, they shuffled their shoes and couldn't quite muster the courage to actually take a stand. The cowardly hypocrisy is mind boggling.

Make no mistake. Today, the day after the attack, Drumpf is still the same lying, clueless con-man he was the day before he ordered it. At it's essence, this raid will have no positive effect on the civil war in Syria, and has the potential for massively counter-productive backlash.

What Drumpf is hoping is that it will deflect American's attention from the on-going criminal and espionage investigations into his money-laundering for Russian Oligarchs and the collusion between his campaign and the Russian propaganda war carried out for his benefit in the last election. It might have been a little more effective had he not colluded with the Russians by informing them, and thereby the Syrians, of the attack before it was launched.

A tellling side note to the attack; Drumpf owns stock in Raytheon, the maker of the Tomahawk missiles used in the attack. Even in his questionable exercise of American foreign policy Drumpf is using his office to line his own pockets.

PERSIST, America.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 14, 2017, 09:03AM
Back in the USA!! This week's Column;

Drumpf!

I was recently taken to task by a person for whom I have utmost respect and consider a friend. He takes exception to my using our President’s original family name rather than the Americanized version he goes by today.

I understand his point. He comes from a military and police background, and his position is that whether or not you respect the person in a position of authority, the position itself is deserving of respect. I get that. It is the basis for the concept of “chain of command” in the military and of “contempt of court” charges in the judicial system.

He also suggests I might have a better chance of communicating my ideas to those who question them were I to show that respect for the position. Maybe, although, from what I see going on in this country, I don’t see much in the way of open minds or hearts amongst the supporters of our “so-called” President.

That said, I am no longer a member of a paramilitary organization, and I hold that respect in civilian life must be earned, not merely bestowed on a position. And, this President has done little, or less, to warrant the respect the position of the Presidency deserves.

I use “the Donald”’s ancestral name of Drumpf in protest of his hateful and intolerant stance on immigration and acceptance of refugees. It is a reminder that we are all, unless we are native Americans, descendants of immigrants and refugees. Drumpf’s grandfather immigrated here from his native Germany to avoid being drafted into the military. After he made a fortune here running saloons of a questionable variety, he attempted to return to Germany. He was deported as a draft-dodger. A family tradition, evidently.

So, until/ unless I see signs that Drumpf is growing into the job his ego drove him to seek, and is earning the respect the position deserves, I will continue to use his ancestral name.

            *   *   *

Drumpf’s ignorance and ill-preparation for the Presidency was obvious throughout the campaign. There are signs he may actually be waking up to how woefully inadequate his understanding of the requirements of the job is. How many times, and on how many subjects, will we have to hear him say, “Who knew it would be so hard”. Unbelievably sad.

His positions on a myriad of subjects are spinning like the proverbial draedel.

Persist, America.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Apr 14, 2017, 09:44AM
Uh, Russ, 'Native Americans' immigrated here from Asia over the Bearing Strait land bridge


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 14, 2017, 10:00AM
Indeed.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 14, 2017, 11:48AM
Uh, Russ, 'Native Americans' immigrated here from Asia over the Bearing Strait land bridge

Yeah, but like the Maoris in New Zealand, the "red men" were here long before the Whites.

Also, since all three of us (Billy, Russ, me) were born in this country, we are all "Native Americans".

I cringe when I hear Trump describing Mexicans and Muslims.  Epithets similar to those hurled at the Irish in the mid 19th Century, Germans in the later 19th Century, Italians and Jews in the early 20th Century, and Chinese almost all the time.  We should have grown past this by now.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 14, 2017, 01:45PM
Actually, I was born in the US hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. But, point taken.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 24, 2017, 06:17AM
This week's effort;

100 DAYS

One thing we know about the current resident of the White House is nothing he says can be taken seriously. No matter what he says, tomorrow he is going to contradict himself or change his mind. The examples are legion.

We are approaching the 100 day mark of the “Drumpf Travesty”. It’s a good time to start evaluating the boasts  and promises of the candidate in comparison with the actual accomplishments and failures of the Presidency. So far, unsurprisingly, it is not a pretty picture.

Prior to the election, Drumpf put out a “Contract with the American Voter” outlining an ambitious program of activities to be accomplished in the first 100 days of the administration. While he has had some minor successes on some points of his “Contract”, even those have been plagued by missteps and confusion.

He did greenlight the construction of the Keystone XL pipeline. But, he also promised it would be built with 100% American produced steel. OOPS! Turns out the steel for the pipeline had already been purchased, and it was produced in Russia, India, and Italy.

Getting his nominee for the SCOTUS confirmed required the GOP (Government of Putin) leadership in the Senate to invoke the “nuclear option”, changing over 200 years of Senate practice and tradition. So, even his successes are tempered with incompetency and evidence of his lack of suitability for the position.

Mexico is NOT paying for the wall, Obamacare is still the law of the land, and his Muslim ban remains an unconstitutional dream according to every court that has ruled on it. China is no longer a “currency manipulator” and NATO is no longer “obsolete”.

As I write this, the Congress is returning from a 2 week Easter recess. Unless they come up with a bill to fund the government before Day 99 on Friday, the government will shut down.

Drumpf is saying he will allow the government to shut down unless funding for the construction of his boondoggle wall is included. Even Republicans recognize the stupidity of that position. They control the Congress and the Presidency. 100% of the blame for a shutdown will fall on their shoulders. It would a disaster for them going into the 2018 mid-term elections.

So, 100 days in, we have the least productive, most incompetent administration in the modern history of this country. They are “The Gang That Couldn’t Shoot Straight”.

Persist, America!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 28, 2017, 07:06AM
First in a series:

Tax Plan?

In an attempt to fulfill another of “The Donald’s” broken “100 Days” campaign promises, Treasury Secretary, Steve Mnuchin, this week announced a “plan” for tax reform that was less than a page in length, and almost completely devoid of details. Someone in the room said, “it could have been written on the back of a cocktail napkin”. Now would be a good time to look back at the destruction wrought on the American economy the last time an economic theory was devised on the back of a napkin.

 

That, of course, was the “Laffer Curve”, the central pillar of the “Voodoo, Trickle-Down, supply-side” economic theory that has since been known as Reaganomics. Nothing has done more to destroy the American Middle Class than the ongoing infatuation of the GOP (Government of Putin, today) with this consistently disproven concept.

 

I’ve heard it called “Zombie” economics because it just won’t die. Drumpf plans to dig it up once again and inflict it on what remains of a dying American middle class. You will hear supporters spewing on about economic growth and how that will offset the revenue lost because those at the top are paying less in taxes. That is the shiny object they use to distract from the actual effects of this disastrous set of policies.

 

One need only look at the reality of the American economy for all Americans both before and after the implementation of “Reaganomics” to see the reality of its destruction. It is not a pretty picture. Let’s look first of all at the “economic growth” at the core of supporters’ arguments. 

 

Economic growth is a historically vacillating phenomenon. At the end of WWII the US economy was, essentially, the “Last Man Standing” as the industrial capacity of the rest of the world lay in ruins. We became the “supplier to the world” of pretty much everything that required manufacturing. This led to unprecedented growth rates over the next 3 decades while the rest of the world rebuilt.

 

As the rest of the world got back on its feet US economic growth began to fluctuate as global competition began to take ever larger market shares in manufacturing and the production of durable goods. That is irreversible. It is a pipe dream to believe that any significant long-term growth will be the result of tax strategy. That is NOT what taxes should be designed to do.

Persist, America.

 

First in a series……….


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on Apr 28, 2017, 08:44AM
It's obvious what we need to do!  Destroy the rest of the world's manufacturing capabilities!  Then, we will have a positive balance of trade, our manufacturing sector will take off.  Problem solved! 


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 28, 2017, 09:53AM
Can you say "North Korea"?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 28, 2017, 01:09PM
The sad part about the Laffer curve is that it is really just a concept.  It appears that economic growth increases with decreasing taxes to a point, and then additional decreases in taxes don't do any more good.  There is a peak where you get maximum "bang for the buck".  This isn't well detailed, but it's somewhere between a 35% tax rate and a 70% tax rate.  We have nobody paying on the upper part of the Laffer curve where a tax break will improve the economy.  In fact, we can probably increase the upper tax rate and stil be on the bottom part of the curve (where decreases in tax rate result in decreases of government revenue).

(http://danieljmitchell.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/laffer-curve.jpg)


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 28, 2017, 01:38PM
Exactly. I suspect the break over point is somewhere in the 50% range. It is like explosive and flammable ranges in chemistry. Within those ranges chemicals can be quite volatile. Outside of those ranges, not so much.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 28, 2017, 03:30PM
Actually, the term you are looking for is reactive.  Volatility is a function of the chemical and the temperature.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Apr 28, 2017, 07:19PM
I stand corrected. I know from experience that flammable and explosive ranges are pretty concrete, and outside of them combustion is not possible. I suspect the same is true of the Laffer Curve.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on Apr 28, 2017, 08:43PM
Absolutely.  It's always fun to show that you can douse a lit cigarette in a cup of gasoline.  But mix air and gasoline vapors in the right proportion and you get a pretty good POP.

I had to investigate a fire in my process area one time.  We had walk-in ovens operating at 300 F to dry panels that were processed in Gamma Butyrolactone.  The ovens were designed with an exhaust sized to handle a truck full of panels safely.  But some operators decided to clean some mechanical parts in the gamma butyrolactone and rolled a cart full of wet parts into the oven to dry.  The fumes exceeded the capacity of the oven to vent.  Then the shaft for the exhaust blower rubbed against the skin of the oven creating a spark.  Result: fire between the inner and outer skins of the oven.  Fortunately there was no danger of igniting anything else, but we read the riot act to the operators about overloading the oven.

The Laffer Curve was developed when the top tax rate was 95%.  It does describe that punitive tax rates are counterproductive.   In fact, there was a 105% rate in Sweden and Ingmar Bergman used to keep his move director salary in the US because of the great penalty of bringing the money home.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 12, 2017, 07:18AM
I took a week off. I'll get back to the series when the GOP (Government of Putin) gets back to the tax issue.........

Comey Firing

The schizophrenia that is the Drumpf administration continues to spin further out of balance with every new action taken by the Twit-in-Chief. The firing of FBI Director James Comey, not undeserved, led to the White House offering a cornucopia of conflicting stories on the hows and whys of the decision.
 
Rehashing a list of the different rationales is rather pointless, as anyone with a brain knows it was about throwing a wrench into the works of the FBI investigations of connections between the Drumpf campaign and the Russian influence in the last election. IT must surely suck to be a member of Drumpf’s team right now. He is quite likely to make you look out of touch and incompetent by contradicting anything you might say as a representative of the administration.

Ask VP Pence or Sarah Huckabee how that feels. Pence spent the entire day after the firing assuring Americans that the decision was made based on a memorandum from Asst AG Rod Rosenstein, only to have the President contradict him by saying he had made the decision to fire Comey before he even asked Rosenstein to write the memo. Huckabee had several similar episodes in the days following the firing.

The firing has been likened to Richard Nixon’s firing of Archibald Cox during the Watergate investigation, and the parallels ARE striking. It was that blatant obstruction of justice that eventually led to Nixon’s downfall. This firing has led to such an out cry for an independent prosecutor that even Republicans may not be able to stem the tide.

It’s been reported that Rosenstein threatened to resign when it appeared he was being made the scapegoat for the firing. The decision on whether or a not an independent prosecutor is appointed falls to Rosenstein due to AG Sessions recusal in the matter.

The decision to fire Comey, and the incompetency of how it was handled, may be the hole in the dike that begins the process of washing away this illegitimate Presidency. You now have an Asst AG who feels he was thrown under a bus, and an FBI whose professional investigators will be more determined than ever to get to the bottom of whatever there is to find in their investigation.

This debacle has been wholly manufactured by Drumpf’s limitless narcissism and incompetence. Republicans need to decide whether or not they are going to go down with his ship.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: bhcordova on May 12, 2017, 09:01AM
But, he's pro-life (he said so) and he's not Hillary!


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: BGuttman on May 12, 2017, 09:39AM
I can just see the thought process that led to this:

"Comey's getting awful close to my friends -- and maybe even me -- in this Russia matter.  How to slow it down?  Wait, the Dems have gone against Comey for the Hillary E-mails.  Let's fire Comey!  They can't complain!"


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 12, 2017, 09:42AM
But, he's pro-life (he said so) and he's not Hillary!

Well, there's that......


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on May 23, 2017, 06:19AM
The beat goes on.........

Clown Car

Here’s a Reader’s Digest list of Drumpf administration news this past week:

Drumpf blurts out code word classified information to the Russians.
Comey memo says Drumpf asked him to drop the Flynn investigation.
It is revealed the classified information Drumpf revealed came from Israel. He did not have their permission to release it.
AAG Rosenstein appoints Special Counsel Robert Muelller to take over the Russian Collusion investigation.
Transcripts show, in the meeting with the Russians, Drumpf said Comey was “crazy, a real nutjob”, and that “I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off”.
Reports surface that an advisor “inside the White House” is now a “person of interest” in the financial crimes segment of the Russia investigation.
It has come out Drumpf asked the heads of US intelligence to put an end to the Russia investigation.

The list goes on and on, and the noose grows ever tighter. Saw a great bumper sticker recently. “Elect a clown, expect a circus.”

So, what to do when the heat in the Big Top gets uncomfortable? Why, take the show on the road, what else? Drumpf loaded up the clown car and headed for the Middle East on the start of his first trip abroad.

First stop, Saudi Arabia. “The Donald” managed to give a speech to a meeting of leaders from 50 Muslim countries without embarrassing himself, or us, but it was noticibly absent of the red meat fear and hate-mongering that so fed his base during his campaign.

Not one mention of “radical Islamic terrorism”. One might have mistaken him for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton in that aspect of the speech. Maybe Donnie is starting to get a glimpse of the real world.

One would not have mistaken him for them in his comments on Iran. This would be the same Iran that just held its second consecutive free and democratic election in which moderates were put in power over the extremist elements of their society.

So, we are selling $110 Billion worth of advanced weaponry to an authoritarian oligarchy that spawned 19 of the 21 terrorists who attacked the US in 2001 and has an atrocious record on human rights. And, we are vilifying a moderating regime in a country with a modern, mostly secular population that wants reconciliation with the west.

Oh, then he went to Israel and said, “We just returned from the Middle East”.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 04, 2017, 12:50PM
I took another week off......

Paris Withdrawal

Wow! Just,…………
WOW!

I, along with a great number of Americans, am beginning to suffer from an acute, and severe, case of Drumpf Fatigue. The daily, hourly, moment to moment revelations of new examples of ineptitude, deception, kleptocracy, and abdication of leadership by this regime are massively exhausting. It is evident meaningful participation in the Persisterhood is going to require the stamina of a marathon runner.

Since I last left you we have seen the Russia probe widen and pull more relevant members of the administration into it’s web, the President wheeling and dealing with strong arm dictators while dissing and insulting our closest allies, and removing the USA from a Paris Climate Accord that has been signed onto by every country on the planet other than Nicaragua and Syria.

It is this last that most symbolizes the adolescent narcissism of this President. European leaders stood up to him on his foreign trip, and to get back at them he is taking his ball and going home from the pact that has so much support from around the world, especially in Europe.

I heard one “talking head” on a news forum say that when you have Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney, Elon Musk, the CEO’s of Apple, WalMart, and Exxon-Mobil all agreeing on something, it is probable you have found something close to a universal truth. Drumpf’s petulant speech announcing his decision was based on fantasy economics and detached from the reality existing in the world today.

President Obama made a powerful statement in response to Drumpf’s action. “………..The world came together in Paris around the first-ever global agreement to set the world on a low-carbon course and protect the world we leave to our children. It was steady, principled American leadership….. that made that achievement possible……….even in the absence of American leadership…… I’m confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way……”

And, indeed, that is exactly what is happening. Governors, Mayors, and business leaders, of both parties, from around the country have vowed to meet the commitments made by our country to our partners around the world. So, America WILL continue to lead in this endeavor, only, as the talking head stated, “it will not be from the White House, it will be in spite of the White House”.

There is hope we will survive Drumpf.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Graham Martin on Jun 04, 2017, 03:40PM
I, along with a great number of Americans, am beginning to suffer from an acute, and severe, case of Drumpf Fatigue. The daily, hourly, moment to moment revelations of new examples of ineptitude, deception, kleptocracy, and abdication of leadership by this regime are massively exhausting. It is evident meaningful participation in the Persisterhood is going to require the stamina of a marathon runner.

There certainly has never been this much ongoing press coverage of the first month's of a new Presidency. And certainly not as much condemnation.

As an example of how exhausting is the press coverage; my main news source, the Australian Broadcasting Commission, has a seemingly permanent heading on the front page of its News website headed "Trump's America". :rolleyes:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/donald-trumps-america/

Trump is certainly putting his mark on the Presidency, which no stain remover will be able to remove. And he is turning a once world-leading nation into an out-of-control world destroyer. :evil:


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 04, 2017, 03:55PM
There certainly has never been this much ongoing press coverage of the first month's of a new Presidency. And certainly not as much condemnation.


Yeah, I know, ain't that a shame!

Newspapers should get back in the business of reporting the news and quit trying to give us their take. Just the news mam! Just the news!

Over 90% of all the journalists are liberal, and so it's really no surprise that they can't help but stirring up the BS and keeping everybody hating everybody else. They should put the brakes on and stop!




Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Piano man on Jun 05, 2017, 02:32AM
Yeah, I know, ain't that a shame!

Newspapers should get back in the business of reporting the news and quit trying to give us their take. Just the news mam! Just the news!

Over 90% of all the journalists are liberal, and so it's really no surprise that they can't help but stirring up the BS and keeping everybody hating everybody else. They should put the brakes on and stop!

Can you give an example of a story they shouldn't be covering, or one that's created by the media rather than 'real news'?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Russ White on Jun 05, 2017, 05:40AM
Can you give an example of a story they shouldn't be covering, or one that's created by the media rather than 'real news'?

Now, that's funny.....


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 05, 2017, 05:42AM
Now, that's funny.....

I'm not saying there are stories they shouldn't be covering.



Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: Baron von Bone on Jun 05, 2017, 05:43AM
Can you give an example of a story they shouldn't be covering, or one that's created by the media rather than 'real news'?

The only one who isn't fully aware he just hurling words at things that don't affirm his views is him, and if nothing else is crystal clear from his "participation" in here, that he's quite impervious to learning anything that doesn't affirm his views, much less understanding or apparently even recognizing such things, is. You're beating your head against the conversational brick wall of intellectual cowardice--intense intellectual cowardice--but pretty no one is unaware of it but the coward himself, and he's busy keeping that wall in a state of perfect repair.


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: ddickerson on Jun 05, 2017, 05:45AM

The only one who isn't fully aware he just hurling words at things that don't affirm his views is him, and if nothing else is crystal clear from his "participation" in here, that he's quite impervious to learning anything that doesn't affirm his views, much less understanding or apparently even recognizing such things, is. You're beating your head against the conversational brick wall of intellectual cowardice--intense intellectual cowardice--but pretty no one is unaware of it but the coward himself, and he's busy keeping that wall in a state of perfect repair.

More psycho babble about me and not the topic. Didn't someone suggest that we should not be hurling stones at each other and just discuss the topic?


Title: Re: Wake Up, America: Take 3
Post by: B0B on Jun 05, 2017, 07:40AM
Newspapers should get back in the business of reporting the news and quit trying to give us their take. Just the news mam! Just the news!
Odd statement there. I seem to remember someone asking you what news sources you peruse, and you linked to one that basically collated opinion links about the current news... they just had a viewpoint friendly to your own. Get the feeling that the problem isn't the commentary so much, but that it goes against your own views.

That said, it'd be pretty hard to find pro-trump commentary from legitimate news source, because his administration thus far as been rather disorganized, lots of drama and infighting, and smacks of no real positive achievements... Anything he has accomplished has been through destructive means.