Monday morning links

Demonstrating her devotion to purposeful, tactical race-baiting, Berry in 2010 endorsed the practice of gratuitously smearing conservative Tea Party political activists as racists. “Tainting the Tea Party movement with the charge of racism is proving to be an effective strategy for Democrats,” she said. “There is no evidence that Tea Party adherents are any more racist than other Republicans, and indeed many other Americans. But getting them to spend their time purging their ranks and having candidates distance themselves should help Democrats win in November. Having one’s opponent rebut charges of racism is far better than discussing joblessness.”

White House wants to add new racial category for Middle Eastern people

I suggest Semitic

Doctor Links ‘Low Testosterone Levels’ to Men Who Support Clinton

Trump May Have Had the Worst Week in Presidential Campaign History

If Trump thinks debate prep is for chumps, his advisers can’t save him from himself

He ain't Nigel Farage

Hillary, they have many names.

"The Time I Found Donald Trump’s Tax Records in My Mailbox."

Gingrich and Hannity stage an intervention with Trump over Alicia Machado

Cher: Millennials ‘Don’t Trust’ Hillary Clinton Because Her ‘Sins Are Really Enormous’

Former Producer: SNL Has ‘Moral Obligation’ to Show Trump’s Dark Side

NY Times and Clinton Crime Family Commit Criminal Act – Publish Donald Trump’s 1995 Tax Returns

Yes, please, a new Cold War. We need one desperately, a conflict responsibly managed in place of the reckless, insane drive for world hegemony emanating from the crazed, evil criminals in Washington who are driving the world to Armageddon.

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 05:00 | Comments (20) | Trackbacks (0)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

No Trackbacks

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

Not flaunted, but flouted, surely? Or Shirley . . ?

#1 Claritas on 2016-10-03 08:04 (Reply)

fixed. it was early in the morning

#1.1 Bird Dog on 2016-10-03 08:31 (Reply)

QUOTE:

Cher: Millennials ‘Don’t Trust’ Hillary Clinton Because Her ‘Sins Are Really Enormous’

Quote-mine.

#2 Zachriel on 2016-10-03 09:08 (Reply)

Yep, she's a veritable open-pit strip mine of quotes.

#2.1 Sam L. on 2016-10-03 16:39 (Reply)

The quote-mine was by Breitbart. It attempts to ascribe to Cher the claim that Clinton's "sins are really enormous", when, in fact, she is ascribing that as a feeling among millennials.

#2.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-03 16:52 (Reply)

Those "hateful" third graders obviously need some sensitivity training if they don't believe a boy is a girl.

#3 Ray on 2016-10-03 10:58 (Reply)

Those parents need a royal beatdown by the third graders for f'ing up that kid.

#3.1 e4 on 2016-10-03 11:55 (Reply)

The best way for a transgender child to avoid the consequences of ze's mother's action is to move to California.

#3.2 ErisGuy on 2016-10-05 07:43 (Reply)

I'm in an educatable mood today....why is the income tax a mistake? Why would tariffs be a better way for the government to siphon money off the middle class?
Before we call for a review of the tax code; shouldn't we curtail the spending habits that the government has?

Steve

#4 Steve on 2016-10-03 12:03 (Reply)

There's the general principle of 'tax what you don't want people to do'.

A tariff is a form of consumption tax, in that you don't pay it unless you consume and specifically consume goods subject to tariff, assuming acceptable substitutes are available. I agree there are issues with implementing consumption taxes but they would, in general, be a better way to fund the government without creating many of the perverse incentives illustrated by Trump's tax situation.

#4.1 Christopher B on 2016-10-03 14:11 (Reply)

They'll never give up the nationalization of income in the US. It's not your income, it's the national income, the tax rates are just how much they let you keep to spend as you see fit.

I think this would be a plan. Let's discuss and change the structure of the tax system, then let Congress define the rates after we change the system. We can have a tax code and a subsidy code. With direct deposit, there is no reason to not have one check that is sent to pay the taxes, then government send out another check to people for things we decide to subsidize.

QUOTE:

John Cochrane: But I think you need to discuss the--I think you can come to agreement, Left and Right, on the structure of the tax code, if you are not simultaneously arguing about the progressivity of the tax code. And, the subsidy code. So, for example, we should get rid of the--and let me take a sacred cow, the mortgage interest deduction. The mortgage interest deduction is equivalent to taxing middle class, hard-working people and sending checks to people in Palo Alto who just refinanced million dollar homes. It subsidizes high-income people who pay high tax rates, and therefore can take a big deduction. It subsidizes people who have big houses. And people borrow money for big houses. If you said, 'We're going to do this on budget as a subsidy,' the peasants with pitchforks would be out in the streets. And properly so. So--but how do you get rid of this? Well, let's change the discussion. We'll have the tax code and raise revenue; and we'll have the subsidy code. Sure. As we'll sit down with Bernie and fill in the rates later? We'll sit down with all the interests and say, 'Fine. We're not going to rule out the mortgage interest deduction. We're just going to do it as a subsidy. On budget.' You want to propose that we send checks to people who want to borrow a lot of money for their house? Fine. We'll talk about that. It's just, it's going to be on budget; and it's going to be a check. Non-profits--we should get rid of that--I hate to say this, in this Institution. I might get fired. The charitable interest, the charitable deduction is a similar--we should get rid of that. And of course if we get rid of the corporate tax there would be no such thing as non-profit versus profit, so this whole business would go away.

#4.2 JK Brown on 2016-10-03 14:48 (Reply)

Trump said before the first debate that he was going to be nice. He was. He called HRC "Secretary Clinton,' and he was there to talk about issues. Not petty things. However, HRC and Holt turned it into a debate about petty things.

I think Trump did the right thing. He arrived prepared to discuss actual issues. He didn't know what kind of treatment he would get from Holt. He always talks about being a person who 'hits back' only have he has been hit.

So, we got the first debate. Unfair tag team by Hillary and Holt, clearly coordinated as pointed out by poker expert who noted the 'nose scratching' and 'chin scratching' done by Hillary.

Next debate, Trump is free to go forward and hit back. He did not want to be called 'mean' or 'name caller'...he also didn't know what kind of health concerns might show up on stage...so he would be called awful for targeting a 'sick woman.'

What else could he do here?

Watch the next debate. He will be different. The first one was a test to see what she and the moderator would do. Now he knows.

#5 MissT on 2016-10-03 12:17 (Reply)

Trump also did not have a working microphone. How could that possibly happen - it was working immediately before they went on air? - the media wouldn't do anything like that Instead of leaning over to get closer to it, he should have said "My microphone is somehow not working, but my opponent's is. I'll wait to answer until after it is fixed"

#5.1 jaybird on 2016-10-03 13:04 (Reply)

"When you do not know that it is a felony"

That article is pure BS. There is mens rea, but there is also negligence. What Hillary did was, at best, negligent. Beside that, she, like everyone granted Secret or Top Secret clearance, signed a document acknowledging that negligent handling of classified materials is a federal crime.

There is a good point to be made about the omission of mens rea in modern law making. Hillary's case does not help make that point.

#6 Ken in NH on 2016-10-03 13:53 (Reply)

Hillary's case does help to a degree, in that by not explicitly including mens rea in many laws Congress is enabling selective prosecution. Comey made exactly that point when declining to forward the results of the investigation. If most laws included explicit mens rea standards, or general standards were set by Congress for existing law, he wouldn't have been able hid behind prosecutorial discretion.

#6.1 Christopher B on 2016-10-03 14:05 (Reply)

Hillary knew her email was "Top Secret". The whole reason she had a secret email server and address was to keep her corrupt dealings secret from the government (IRS, honest Federal Attorneys, honest news media-if any). They were "Hillary Top SECRET"
How could the FBI claim she didn't know that President Obama was writing her phony email name at her phony server using a phony email address, and that these were classified? Many emails, not ever produced because they are classified. Was Obama asking seeking classified yoga exercises?
How could Hillary not know that a thousand emails to and from CIA Director Petraeus through her "secret" server to her phony email name were not classified? Was Petraeus seeking classified yoga exercises? Mens rea concerns knowledge and intent to do the act. It can clearly be inferred.

#6.1.1 jaybird on 2016-10-03 15:22 (Reply)

jaybird: Hillary knew her email was "Top Secret".

There were 110 emails that were classified at the time, but not properly marked. Three had portion markings for confidential, but the markings may have easily been missed. Two were actually marked incorrectly, in any case. Other emails were retroactively classified.

Classified information had also been sent over the personal email account of Colin Powell and also the personal email accounts of aides to Condoleezza Rice.

The problem of using email for classified information is problematic even for dotgov addresses. There's a special intranet system for classified communications.

#6.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2016-10-03 16:15 (Reply)

Lawrence Keeley's War Before Civilization: The Myth of the Peaceful Savage was a big turning point in the literature about prehistoric violence, and the ongoing violence in preliterate societies. He references Napoleon Chagnon's excellent field work and observations, and how hard anthropologists tried to ignore it. The escape-hatch was the contention that none of these tribes had been violent until they had come in contact with evil civilized peoples. The archaeological digs keep inconveniently discovering human bones with evidence of death by violence. Including, BTW, human tooth-marks on some of them.

Because of superior organization and cooperation, I grant that modern civilized man is far better at killing large groups of enemies quickly. But early man was constantly at war, losing a percent or two to violence every year, punctuated by small genocides of neighboring tribes.

#7 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-10-03 16:13 (Reply)

Those college spots for deconstructing toxic masculinities...You could go a learn about TM's in order to reconstruct them, too, I imagine. A shy boy might want to go and pick up some reverse pointers. "Don't ever, ever, do this Trevor." "No ma'am, I won't. Have you got any other things I should never, never, do?"

#8 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2016-10-03 16:20 (Reply)

AVI,
I doubt if that would work in reverse. I signed up for one of those spouse abuse clinics and thought I would learn the latest techniques. Then I found out they were against it. Couldn't get a refund so the money was wasted.

#9 Ray on 2016-10-03 17:44 (Reply)

Add Comment

Name
Email	(Your e-mail will not show in your comment)
Homepage
In reply to
Comment	By commenting on this site you agree to the site rules listed here. Email addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for email notifications. Quick reference guide: [i] italics [/i], [b] bold [/b], [u] underline [/u], [url] (web address) [/url]. More tips here. Enclosing asterisks marks text as bold (word), underscore are made via _word_. E-Mail addresses will not be displayed and will only be used for E-Mail notifications. To prevent automated Bots from commentspamming, please enter the string you see in the image below in the appropriate input box. Your comment will only be submitted if the strings match. Please ensure that your browser supports and accepts cookies, or your comment cannot be verified correctly. Enter the string from the spam-prevention image above: BBCode format allowed
	Remember Information? Subscribe to this entry

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, October 3. 2016

Monday morning links