Guard Dog

Looks like prom night is about to get interesting! Look at what'd doing in the background!

Welcome back Woldan!

I'm going down to Florida this week to visit my brother. We have only spoke once since Dad passed away. That's not good. Afterwards I'll probably go to Cedar Key or Steinhatchee and do some fishing.

This is why our country is in trouble my friend. It one thing to disagree on policy, role of government, what to do next, etc. But Americans can't even agree on what the facts are now. There is no longer a consensus on what is true and what isn't. The media is not what we needed it to be. An impartial source of information. Years ago people like Cronkite & Murrow were trusted. If they said "this is so" then you felt you could believe them. Now, no one is trusted. If Fox runs a story that is negative for Clinton it is dismissed as Fox being Fox. Even if it is a true story. Ditto for CNN/MSNBC/insert name here. That the story might be factual no longer matters because we don't trust the source. The media can only blame itself. It has ruined it's own credibility. And that is a real problem for us. I seriously believe is Americans were better informed Hillary & Trump would not be the nominees of the two major parties right now. Real news is out there, but you have to go find it. Most folks won't do that. They eat what is spoon fed and if that turns out to be poison, oh well.

I see he doesnt mention CNN, he specifically says CBS, NBC and ABC We dont get any of those in SA so I have no idea if they are bias. I just know Trump makes the media scrutinze him....with his new campaign advisors hopefully this should change Or, maybe, just maybe...if Trump isn't such a bald faced liar, or such a crummy candidate, he wouldn't be getting called out so frequently. Mainstream media is doing its job. Oh don't EVEN post from Politifact. They have 0 credibility and are as far from independent as Hillary Clinton is from honest. http://townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/2016/06/29/the-liberal-tilt-at-politifact-n2185076 https://www.reddit.com/r/NeutralPolitics/comments/39fbov/is_politifact_truly_neutral/ http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/l-brent-bozell-iii/liberal-tilt-politifact http://www.weeklystandard.com/liberal-pundits-shocked-to-discover-politifact-not-always-factual/article/614522

I see he doesnt mention CNN, he specifically says CBS, NBC and ABC We dont get any of those in SA so I have no idea if they are bias. I just know Trump makes the media scrutinze him....with his new campaign advisors hopefully this should change Bruce, along with the six or seven specific examples of CNN's pro-Hillary bias I've already linked for you in this thread and it's predecessors, let me say, anecdotally, it's not for nothing we call it the "Clinton News Network" in these parts.

Interesting perspective: http://nypost.com/2016/08/21/american-journalism-is-collapsing-before-our-eyes/

Oh I know. As soon as wish they would all wake up and do the right thing tomorrow.

This came up in the election discussion. I thought it might be worth a look. Where do you get your news every day? Is it the same sites or do you jump around? What newspapers do you read? What news magazines do you read? What web sites do you rely on? For me, I read the local newspaper The Commercial Appeal everyday. There is a paper box at the end of the dirt road that leads to my place. I get it delivered every day. I'm old school like that I guess. I like to read an actual newspaper at night. Plus it makes good charcoal starter. It doesn't leave the petroleum taste on your food the way lighter fluid does. I also have a USA Today & Washington Post app on my Kindle and at I least look through those two everyday. I only get two magazines. I wouldn't call National Geographic a news mag but I've been reading it since I was a kid. I get both the print & electronic versions. I also read Reason magazine pretty regularly. As for web sites I check Drudge Report sever times a day. It has many different news sources linked to one page. I also spend at least an hour a day reading the RealClear sites (RealClear Politics, Sports, World, Books, History, Science & Technology). They are really well put together.

You know term limits might go a long way towards Congress behaving the way Congress should. When legislators can't see past the next election it makes them far less likely to do what must be done even if it's unpleasant.

misunderstanding. ain't the number but the manner in which such has been used. obama has frequent used executive orders to circumvent Congress. is not the number o' orders that makes folks cry foul but rather the belief that obama has far exceeded the limits o' executive authority as granted to him by the Constitution. admittedly, in the last couple decades, Congress has become willful impotent. folks on the Hill is purposeful not doing their jobs. is less risky to do nothing and let courts and the executive fulfill the role that once were within the zone o' influence o' the legislative branch. obama's executive orders arguable has exceeded Constitutional limits, but Congressional incompetence has created a power vacuum that were gonna naturally be filled by either the States or the POTUS. what obama has done with executive orders is, all too often, unconstitutional. is not quantity but quality. the thing is, obama were only in a position to misuse executive orders to the degree he has 'cause o' long-term, unchecked, Congressional futility. HA! Good Fun! Congressional deadlock is not a bad thing sometimes. As you mentioned a few pages ago, one might say the government is the people (not a notion I buy 100%). The House of Representatives even more so than the Senate, Executive, or Court. When the Republicans became the majority in 2010 they did so with the promise to rein in the President. By not passing his agenda they are doing exactly that. It isn't futility then, it's the will of the people. The President should not take Congressional intransigence as license to do whatever the hell he pleases with executive orders. Now if you meant Congressional futility was them rolling over on their backs and letting the last two Presidents use executive orders to usurp their power then I'd agree. Congress should have hauled him up short several times, not waited for the court to do it two times.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/21/dont-look-now-but-barack-obama-is-suddenly-popular/ GD you should also consider the fact Obama is on a 50-55 % overall approval rating, this is much higher than Bush was at the same time of his second term So people would be more critical of Bush, he was more disliked ? OK, we are not talking about "people". We are talking about the news media. And I can accept that your personal political preferences will not permit speak (or type in this case) words that are critical of Obama or Hillary no matter how much they might deserve to be criticized. But I refuse to believe you are too dense to see the disparity in the example i just described. As for the media ignoring in Obama what they expended tens of thousands of words, ink, minutes and megabytes criticizing Bush for, it is a fact beyond argument at this point that 90% of the "mainstream" news outlets are irredeemably biased to the left. A few posts back Breibart, WND and other "alt-right" as Leferd called them websites were being discussed. The truth is their existence is as much a product of the bias and hubris of the "mainstream" media as it is the axe their founders wanted to grind.

I find it interesting that as floods do billions in damage in Louisiana the President is on vacation playing golf at Martha's Vineyard and has had little to say and hasn't troubled himself to visit. Of course, what could he do there? Is he going to drive a boat or pick up a bucket to bail water? So the media has been silent about the fact that this disaster seems beneath his notice. Of course I recall another time that flood waters did billions in damage in Louisiana and a different President was on vacation at his home in Texas and the media was not nearly so understanding. In fact they excoriated him for the remainder of his days in office and for years after in fact. What is the difference? That one had an R after his name. This one has a D.

what the hell why isn't that censored but so much else that is very arguably milder is 'Cause Jessie Ventura said it and he's cool. Supposedly. I think he's a jackass but that's me.

Step up your game you slack-jawed faggots! And they were friends! At least in the beginning. And at the end. Their biggest quarrel was the role of the Federal government vs State government. 216 years later and we are STILL arguing about that. Ironically they both died on the same July 4th and were the last of the signers of the Declaration of Independence to go.

Clearly overstating his (potential) impact on the race. Probably. But as we were discussing before, there are other prizes to be had in the race than the White House. A trip to the debates, a strong showing on election day (say 5-7%) and a concerted effort to run congressional candidates in 2018 sets things up nicely for 2020. Assuming a suitable candidate can be found. I don't think Johnson will run again and I don't think they will have Weld without him. As long as the electoral system isn't reformed there is no way a third party becomes a viable option in the US, unfortunately. There have been periods where there have been more than two viable political parties. The Republicans started out as a single issue party on the political fringe. It was one of three in that time. The difference between the evolution of the GOP and others that failed really comes down to strategy. By the time Lincoln became president there are many Republicans in Congress and State legislatures. One my my biggest criticisms of the LP is they have a candidate for President in every election and expend a tremndous about of their limited resources on ballot access. It's expensive with a very low return on the investment. They would be better served focusing on supporting candidates for Congress & State Houses rather than a "hail mary" every four years. of the 3k or so Libertarians holding office now, just seven are in State government, none in Federal government and the rest are County/City/Municipality. That's good but it's not a base to grow from.

Inter-party factions tend to run out of gas. I think what killed the Tea Party (assuming it has even been killed) was they got nearly every candidate they wanted and they went to DC and became just another Republican. It would be like Bernie Sanders riding a populist wave into office then signing TPP, invading Syria, and rolling back environmental regulations. That would just break the faction that put him there.

Clearly overstating his (potential) impact on the race. Probably. But as we were discussing before, there are other prizes to be had in the race than the White House. A trip to the debates, a strong showing on election day (say 5-7%) and a concerted effort to run congressional candidates in 2018 sets things up nicely for 2020. Assuming a suitable candidate can be found. I don't think Johnson will run again and I don't think they will have Weld without him.

Yes, a consumption tax like a national sales tax. Generally (at least in states I've lived in) it's applied to all non-essential (meaning not on grocery or medicine) purchases. Although he hasn't released specifics on how it would work or what would be exempt that I've seen. On advantage though, everyone will be paying taxes. Rich, poor, legal and illegal. Because there is no escaping it the over all burden may be less than the income tax. It would certainly cost a heck of a lot less to collect. Of course, he can't wave a wand and make this happen. He'd have to get Congress to buy in.

I'm sure Breitbart is an objective source now that it's chairman is running Trump's campaign! I wouldn't exactly call it objective before. But sites like Briebart, Infowars, World Net Daily are pretty up front with what they are about. There isn't any false advertising there. They are not masquerading as a legitimate news outlet. MSNBC on the other hand....

Less than a month to go, keep pushing: http://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2016/08/18/gary-johnson-may-soon-become-hard-parties-ignore/

OK that is probably fair

I believe you have also read me saying that hyperbole and internet forums go together like peanut butter & jelly. It makes for lively discussion. But I do figure you know where I'll come down on most "public interest vs individual liberty" issues. Besides, democracy isn't the spackle, it's the sand paper: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/us/colorado-lawmaker-concedes-defeat-in-recall-over-gun-law.html?_r=0

It's a bit of a stretch to say drinking a non-alcoholic beverage that does not require the driver to take their eyes off the road, that we have been doing since Mr. Ford began mass producing vehicles, is a distraction worthy of criminal sanction! That is a little too much spackle. You also didn't hear me put up a fuss when 33 of 50 States made texting and driving a ticketing offense.