Jump to content

Guard Dog

Members
  • Posts

    644
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    206

Everything posted by Guard Dog

  1. In our current climate we are not growing our economy. Or even trying very hard to do so to tell the truth. If we want to turn that around a good start would be to elect some political leaders who haven't gone all-in on Keynesian economics and believe they can tax and spend our way into prosperity. I'm not talking about individual tax rates. Those are not that bad. I'm talking about the "cost of doing business" stuff that is driving employers overseas and nothing is taking their place.
  2. Want to see what it looks like to have your whole season flash before your eyes? http://m.mlb.com/video/v699863083/?game_pk=447427
  3. Meshugger when Trump gets horribly beaten in November will you acknowledge you were wrong? Our American members are allowed to be wrong as its there country but foreigners like you and I who had a lot to say about Hilary or Trump need to show some humility I think you totally missed a beautiful joke in that post!
  4. LOL I had the perfect comeback... but you already had it in there! This thread is over Meshugger wins!
  5. I think you're conflating "equal outcome" and "maybe don't have so much of a gap between the haves and the have-nots that it literally kills people". I agree. And there are two ways to do that. Expand the economy so there is work and opportunity for all (a rising tide lifts all boats) or tax the living s--t out of everything in sight and use the money for "social welfare". The former solution creates equality by allowing the lower class to become middle class. Yeah, we've seen how well the "give money to the rich so they can create jobs for the poor" tactic worked so far. Spoiler: it didn't. It's not about giving money to the rich. It about letting people keep more of the money they earn. Because they spend it, invest it, donate it, etc. Economic activity breeds economic activity. That is how an economy grows. And as economies grow more people get to participate and they pay taxes too. So by reducing taxes and expanding the economy government revenue actually increases because more people are earning more money and many are paying taxes who were not before. If you increase the taxes then those who spend and invest do less of both. The economy shrinks and there are fewer employment opportunities and more people need assistance and the government is forced to raise taxes again and that means fewer jobs and companies going overseas... you see the idea here? It's not hard to grasp.
  6. Well the CIA does have an important role to play when it comes to gathering information. I can see scaling back operations but the should not have cut intel gathering the way the last three administrations have.
  7. No it won't be Gingrich. He brings nothing to the ticket. It won't be Cruz because Texas is in the bag already. Kasich is a possibility because he delivers Ohio and Trump needs Ohio. It might also serve as a peace offering to the "mainstream" GOP. Joni Ernst would be and interesting choice but she hasn't been around long enough to shed the "no experience" tag Trump already has. Christie, Carson & Sessions don't bring any electoral votes with them (Trump will probably still lose NJ with Christie on the ticket. Huckabee is a non starter and I don't think Rice is interested in going back to DC. James Webb... that might require a closer look. If he puts Virginia in play and give Trump appeal to disaffected Democrats... maybe. That leaves Susana Martinez and Marco Rubio. Martinez would be a solid choice IMO. Economically conservative, socially liberal and certainly not neo-con. DC outsider with lots of government experience. She is Hispanic so that helps. She probably puts New Mexico in play but that is not a lot of electors. Rubio would shore up Florida and he is certainly a competent political leader. But Trump did a lot of damage to him in the campaign and he may not even want the job. My guess is either Martinez or Kasich with Webb as the darkhorse. Now on the other side... Hillary may be forced to accept Sanders. If he wants that. I'm not sure he does though. I KNOW she does not want him. Tim Kaine is well liked and a Clinton insider. He would be a "safe" choice. Elizabeth Warren would be a mistake. It would be like having Hillary twice on the ticket and Hillary is already going to win MA. Plus Warren has said a lot of stupid things over the years that will get a lot of replay. Julian Castro is a solid choice. His speech at the 2012 convention put him "on deck" especially if the Dems are looking at 2020 and 2024. He doesn't bring any electoral votes but he is a good choice. Tom Perez would be a big mistake. You don't want the outgoing labor secretary on the ticket right now with the job market as it is. If Trump picks anyone other than Kasich Hillary would be a fool to pass on Sherrod Brown. He is right down the middle on the Democrat platform and he is popular in Ohio. He is not a exciting choice by any means but he should put Ohio in the bag. Booker brings nothing she didn't already have. Warner is too vanilla. Franken would definitely grab headlines. Patrick is no help because she already has MA locked up. Evan Bayh seems to be looking to get out of Government. I'm not sure he's be interested. So my guess is Kaine, Castro, or Brown.
  8. Nowadays the CIA is a shadow of what it once was.
  9. I think you're conflating "equal outcome" and "maybe don't have so much of a gap between the haves and the have-nots that it literally kills people". I agree. And there are two ways to do that. Expand the economy so there is work and opportunity for all (a rising tide lifts all boats) or tax the living s--t out of everything in sight and use the money for "social welfare". The former solution creates equality by allowing the lower class to become middle class. The latter creates equality by moving the middle class into the lower class. The rich will still be rich no matter what. Those who don't work will still be depending on those who do to pay their way no matter what. Now, given that those two options are mutually exclusive which one strikes you as best?
  10. I wouldn't worry about it. I'm not sure how much gas this had left anyway. I was going to make a post pointing out the disparity in the SJW confusion of equal opportunity vs/ equal outcome... but to hell with it.No one wanted to read it anyway.
  11. It's a mad, mad world we live in: http://nypost.com/2016/05/14/owellian-administration-brands-criminals-justice-involved-individuals/
  12. IndriaLightfoot! It's been far too long since you paid us a visit.
  13. Actually if society were really filled with weak men I'd be happy. I'll be running this place in no time!
  14. God dammit GD, you have to inject whatever catchphrase she's using now. No Correct the Record money for you. Rats! You were right. The Correct the Record folks just told me to perform an anatomically impossible (for me at least) sexual act on myself. Oh well.
  15. Back on topic: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-sanders-prayer-circle-20160514-snap-story.html Even the witches are against Hillary! Oh wait... I forgot... I'm for Hillary now. Yeah Hillary... go Hill! Long live the pantsuit politburo. Down with freedom up with Hillary! (cntrl c.... cntrl v)
  16. If she was a state judge she would not survive her next retention vote. If she were a appellate or Supreme Court justice we'd be stuck with her but she will never get a decent table in a DC restaurant after that. But you agree she should fired? How can she claim an inkling of impartiality to think such things? It isn't because she thinks it. It's because she SAID it. People are going to think what they think. The court has to have the appearance of impartiality. She could never be an effective jurist now. Even if what she is saying is true she should know better than to pop off on social media about it. You make some good points but its not true....its offensive and uninformed, she said things like In another post attributed to her, she said that "murder is also not a biggy" for black men and "gang rapes of baby, daughter, and mother [were] a pleasurable pass [sic] time". I didn't say it was true. I just said even if she said something true. If a judge in the US were to say a higher number of violent offenders are black than white it would be a true statement, But you can't just go say crap like that because it's prejudicial because of a racial qualification. And because it is being presented without context. Even if the judge meant well or only meant to be stating a statistical fact they are feeding a negative stereotype as well as justifying the racism of others. So in other words a jurist should have the good sense to STFU. We dont have juries in SA....only judges so she was basically deciding verdicts for years with that attitude Is there an appellate process? Seems to me every verdict she ever rendered would have solid footing for appeal. In the US the lawyers would be salivating over this! Oh by the way, jurist is another word for judge. I think you misunderstood me.
  17. “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." C.S Lewis on moral tyranny. He was actually talking about religious zealotry here but zealotry in the cause of Social Justice is every bit as bad IMO.
  18. If she was a state judge she would not survive her next retention vote. If she were a appellate or Supreme Court justice we'd be stuck with her but she will never get a decent table in a DC restaurant after that. But you agree she should fired? How can she claim an inkling of impartiality to think such things? It isn't because she thinks it. It's because she SAID it. People are going to think what they think. The court has to have the appearance of impartiality. She could never be an effective jurist now. Even if what she is saying is true she should know better than to pop off on social media about it. You make some good points but its not true....its offensive and uninformed, she said things like In another post attributed to her, she said that "murder is also not a biggy" for black men and "gang rapes of baby, daughter, and mother [were] a pleasurable pass [sic] time". I didn't say it was true. I just said even if she said something true. If a judge in the US were to say a higher number of violent offenders are black than white it would be a true statement, But you can't just go say crap like that because it's prejudicial because of a racial qualification. And because it is being presented without context. Even if the judge meant well or only meant to be stating a statistical fact they are feeding a negative stereotype as well as justifying the racism of others. So in other words a jurist should have the good sense to STFU.
  19. If she was a state judge she would not survive her next retention vote. If she were a appellate or Supreme Court justice we'd be stuck with her but she will never get a decent table in a DC restaurant after that. But you agree she should fired? How can she claim an inkling of impartiality to think such things? It isn't because she thinks it. It's because she SAID it. People are going to think what they think. The court has to have the appearance of impartiality. She could never be an effective jurist now. Even if what she is saying is true she should know better than to pop off on social media about it.
  20. Oby you cant possibly believe the US is behind the current crisis in Brazil ? I remember I used to chide people here who in one post would talk about how stupid George W Bush was and in the next accuse him of masterminding 9-11 just so he could invade Iraq. That would require a criminal mastermind even greater than Emperor Palpatine. And this is the guy they think is stupid??
  21. Wouldn't even try. Like I said it would be foolish to give a straight fight. But this is all hypothetical.
  22. If she was a state judge she would not survive her next retention vote. If she were a appellate or Supreme Court justice we'd be stuck with her but she will never get a decent table in a DC restaurant after that.
  23. Do you mean like another Civil War? Under the correct circumstances... yes. I don't think it will or should happen. But it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility. Did you really watch what happened there Bruce? Hillary's people disqualified a majority of Sanders delegates and refused to say why. Then despite a vote in favor of a recount closed the convention and walked away but not before asking the sheriff deputies to put everyone out. But who fight in this war? And surly because of the resources any internal battle against the Federal government would be suicidal? In 2015 there were 14,843,895 resident hunting licenses sold in the US. Many hunters will buy a out-of-state license to hunt in another state, but they will only buy one resident license. Bear in mind, this is just hunters. Forget for a moment sport shooters, and folks who keep them for home defense. That means 14,843,895 people who own at least one (probably more) rifle or shotgun and are proficient in their use. The entire armed strength of the US Military, FBI, CIA, Secret Service, and US Marshal Service is 2.75M. Assume 100% of them would be willing to take up arms against their fellow citizens (by NO means a certainty) and had to fight just the hunters. Even if just a third of the hunters only (discounting other gun owners) were willing to fight it would be the largest armed force in the history of the world. Now granted we are being hypothetical about something that while possible, is unlikely. And it would be impossible or organize all of that into a united fighting force but it would be stupid to give the US Military a stand up fight and there are many historical examples of partisan effectiveness. And it may be suicidal in the end. But as anyone who has served in the military will tell you there are many things more dear than your own life.
  24. Do you mean like another Civil War? Under the correct circumstances... yes. I don't think it will or should happen. But it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility. Did you really watch what happened there Bruce? Hillary's people disqualified a majority of Sanders delegates and refused to say why. Then despite a vote in favor of a recount closed the convention and walked away but not before asking the sheriff deputies to put everyone out.
  25. Does that mean I need to get my Colt 1851 Navy Revolver back into working order? Your Colt AR-15 will serve you better. Unless Hillary tries to take it away from you.
×
×
  • Create New...