We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page
Monday, November 7. 2016
Budweiser Turned Around This Incredible Cubs World Series Ad Overnight
I think people often use the word empathy when they just mean sympathy
The county actually ran a sting on an online food group, apparently having solved all other crime in the county.
Vanity Fair: Maybe the Right-Wing Media Isn't Crazy. Maybe the Media Is Biased as Sh*t.
Election Day is overrated. The days just before Election Day are the worst.
Doug Band Accuses Chelsea Of Using Clinton Foundation Money To Pay For Her Wedding:
Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)
"Sociopath" is not the right word. You'd think he would be more precise. Throwing every bad name one can think of into the basket regardless of its accuracy is a mark of sloppy thinking.
>>The county actually ran a sting on an online food group, apparently having solved all other crime in the county.
Read an article the other day about a KY town that is targeting the amish buggies and the manure they leave on the roads want to force the horses to wear diapers or some horseshit.
that's just the way it goes when the state is parasitic (which is always). Target the productive (where their revenue comes from) and let the real criminals skate (above the law).
And the amount of comments of those who agree with it, because they don't like being stuck behind buggies, or have to see horseshit on the road, all I can say is:
“First they came for the Communists but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists but I was not one of them, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews but I was not Jewish so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”
the state has to make everyone a criminal.
and who doesn't like a slippery slope argument?
this is a funny story because the KY amish are thousands of miles and hundreds of years away. but if a KY amish horse kicked its shit onto my windshield I'd be out for blood. YMMV.
Workers vrs the Smirkers, and all it entails, is not just an American problem; it is common to the Industrialized West. I am unaware of any country finding a path through this. It is my belief that, if any solution is forthcoming, it most likely will come from Australia, and just maybe Great Britain. In the past, I have had high hopes it would come from the USA, if so Nov 8th will tell the tale.
"Harvard Prof: “Riot in the Streets” to Block “Sociopath” Trump "........................
I love watching people talk who don't know their idiots.
His inability to consider opposing points of view makes me not want to consider his. Just on principle....................
We deplore corruption because it undermines any meritocracy and democratic process. To be a government official who sells influence is to work outside official, presumably accountable channels. It is not merely that some people get rich by skimming money off the large transfers of funds - that is infuriatingly unjust, but only indirectly harms the nation as a whole. It is the destruction of the institutions of a society that is damaging. When Hillary Clinton sells access and influence, she does what tyrants have done for centuries. It works great until the day it doesn't, then everything collapses.
I have been frustrated that her supporters cannot be made to see that this is happening - that they deny it occurs, make excuses for it, or claim it's just politics-as-usual and no big deal. But there is another possibility. They might secretly approve of it because they like tyranny, believing it will be their people holding the whip hand. I don't accuse all Clinton supporters of this, though I suspect it is there unrecognized and unacknowledged in the darker thoughts of even some very nice people. It's not a bug, it's a feature.
No one is meaner than nice people.
"They might secretly approve of it because they like tyranny, believing it will be their people holding the whip hand."
For the past 16 years I've worked for (blue) State level government and have had the "pleasure" of being in the belly of the beast. I have anecdotal evidence to the truth or your statement that would turn your hair grey (assuming it's not). It's most likely a larger number than you are imagining and among government "employees" tyranny has open approval in the office space.
More conservatives need to apply for government work, personnel is policy - and we can make a difference, I've seen it happen. We must stop ceding power. It took the Left a long time to get were they are and it will take us just as long to reverse course. Secondly, people need to stop sending their children to government schools - we could change course much faster - and no dear readers, your local school is not immune to Leftist ideology... it's how we got here in the first place.
Yes, it turns out that the only thing worse than having to deal with the male gaze...is not having to deal with it.
Sad truth for homely women and unattractive gay men. :-/
When woman wish for an alternative to the male gaze, they're generally hoping for an ordinary human interaction. For some guys, though, absent the sexual charge, there's nothing else there to make contact with. If these guys can't see a woman as an object of desire, she doesn't register with them at all. Guys of that stripe are only half-human, and best avoided.
Re: Donald Trump: America's Junkyard Dog
Yes! After the 1994 Republican sweep, it looked like Republicans were finally ready to do something rather than propose a watered down version of Democratic ideas. After the Clinton impeachment, that seemed to change and no matter how many Republicans we elected, there didn't seem to be any stomach for standing up for us... Till now.
So no wonder Hillary was keen to erase the email messages about Chelsea's wedding...
"Why they hate us"
In the early 60's the Democrats led by the lion of the Senate Ted Kennedy made a conscious decision to put in place a bloodless coup over America. They decided to open the floodgates of immigration with two distinct goals: 1. to flood the country with people who had no allegiance to America and could easily be bought with 'free stuff' and promises to bring more of their particular 'tribe' to America. 2. To destroy the middle class with taxes to pay for the 'free stuff'. That meddlesome middle class who preferred the constitution over a ruling class and would vote to stop the takeover of their government.
But how do you do this right in front of everyone; the voters, the media, and most importantly the middle class that you are openly bleeding to accomplish your goals? Well than god for Saul Alinsky. What you do is over time identify the enemy, those who would resist the takeover, and attack, isolate and destroy them. Call them names; xenophobe, racist, mean spirited, deplorable, etc. Take over the schools and use propaganda and brainwashing to build a generation of left wing robots. Flood the MSM with fellow travelers who will hide the facts and print the propaganda. And of course pervert the government so that much of this can take place in secret.
A perfect trap is one that the victim(s) don't see, it entices them in and once sprung cannot be unsprung and fulfills it's ugly purpose relentlessly. This is a perfect description of Ted Kennedy's and the Democrat's immigration trap. By the time everyone realizes what was done to them it will be too late and impossible to undue the damage. Once enough immigrants and willing useful idiots will consistently vote for one party in return for more 'free stuff' it will be impossible to unring that bell.
Think about the older generation living on SS. They may have fought in WW II or Vietnam. They may have lived a good and honest life. They contributed to the SS retirement for 50 years and no they live on $1200 a month. They earned it, it isn't enough but they hang in there. Compare that with a refugee family who costs the taxpayer about $5000 a month. They didn't contribute anything to this 'free stuff'. They typically resent us because we don't bow to their religion. They commit far more crime than the typical middle class American. And they want to bring in their 200 cousins and inlaws who will want to bring in their cousins and inlaws, etc. Our leaders/politicians, the same ones who should be working for Americans, want those new votes and will actively seek to change laws and minds to allow them to bring in 10, 20 30 million new immigrants every year to flood the country with new voters who will consistently vote for them. Their interest is NOT the citizens, the Americans who elected them. Their interest is the possible new votes. These politicians will speak before them in their native language promising them to tax Americans to give them more free stuff and to open the borders. The media will not report to you what these politicians have promised because they are part of the conspiracy to take over America.
The target was always too tempting. Rich in money and resources. After we sold the uranium mines, the coal mines and the oil fields to foreigners they looked around for other things they could steal/loot. And they set their sights on you. We have reached the tipping point. It is unlikely that even if all Americans woke up to these facts today that they could stop it. Your leaders oppose you, the bureaucrats oppose you, the courts oppose you and the MSM opposes you. You are so screwed...
Do you think that's why people line up hours in advance of a Trump rally, standing through rain and heat and cold to listen to him, parking miles from the destination only to walk miles to and from, battling traffic to get home afterwards, then raving about what a great time was had by all? Yesterday, he held five rallies, bouncing across the country to end up in Virginia by midnight. MIDNIGHT! And thousands greeted him, having waited hours to see him. Half could not get into the crowded venue, but were simply happy to get a glimpse of the candidate. I've been around campaigns since the Goldwater days and have never, ever witnessed anything like this election cycle.
BTW, exceptional post, GWTW!
GoneWif In the early 60's
Stop whining and accept your fate. You people haven't done anything about any of this for the last 60 years, why should we worry about what you might do now?
Because we're mad as HELL about it, and at you? Payback may be long in coming, but the fury has been a long time building.
Re: Vanity Fair: Maybe the Right-Wing Media Isn't Crazy. Maybe the Media Is Biased as Sh*t.
Gee! Do ya think? And it only took you how long to find out?
great...Yes, it turns out that the only thing worse than having to deal with the male gaze...is not having to deal with it.
"Why they hate us"
I hate these Alt-Right goofballs personally, because they are terminally stupid, limitlessly self-congratulatory, and because they are constantly spouting complete BS. Let's take a look a Zman's indictment of the Conservative Movement. "[T]he Conservative Movement lost on all but the foreign policy stuff, and that has been a disaster. The tax bite has not changed very much since the 50’s, despite endless rounds of tax cuts and tax reform." Oh, yeah? Well, take a look at this chart: http://www.data360.org/temp/dsg475_500_350.jpg
Zman is a low-information asshole posturing and peddling nothing but propaganda. He and his ilk are too stupid and irresponsible to participate seriously in any political or policy debates. They are just the loudmouths in the Trumpkin mob, shouting slogans.
Thanks Zinc. Saves me the trouble of reading a foul mouth lib blog.
Your chart not very useful in this discussion. It applies only to Federal income taxes and doesn't include state, local, and corporate taxes. Further, I remember many years ago Herbert Stein remarking that in spite of any tax reform, that Federal receipts were always around 19% of GDP. Today, that figure is about 26%.
It also doesn't include taxes on your property, phone/Internet services, utilities, gasoline, entertainment, etc. Soda? Hey, why not. And don't forget licenses for everything from having a dog to "doing business" in a number of areas, which are also a tax that most didn't endure in the 50s. Sorry, David, bad comparison.
Federal Spending and Revenue as Percentage of GDP
Overall Government Sector's Receipts and Expenditures as a Percent of GDP
Overall government spending increased through 1990, then decreased during the Clinton Administration, then increased again beginning in the Bush Administration. Also note that the Great Recession distorts the percentage due to the dramatic drop in GDP.
Your second graph says much the opposite, though the differences are not large. Consider that there is a delay between when a president is elected and when his policies take effect. About two years, actually. Consider also that Congress has more of an impact than the president. About double, off-the-cuff. And secular changes in the economy are likely more still.
Assistant Village Idiot: Your second graph says much the opposite, though the differences are not large.
Don't see where it says "the opposite". The opposite of what?
This meme floats around FB all the time. People credit B Clinton and Obama for fiscal policies forced on them due to gridlock with a GOP Congress, even if you give the GOP no credit for fiscal restraint.
Christopher B: People credit B Clinton and Obama for fiscal policies forced on them due to gridlock with a GOP Congress, even if you give the GOP no credit for fiscal restraint.
Clinton campaigned on reducing government spending and reforming welfare. He worked with Congress, in particular Newt Gingrich, signing the budget and welfare reform deals that led to sustained economic growth and federal cash surpluses.
Obama, on the other hand, was faced with the worst economic calamity since the Great Depression. That required both fiscal and monetary responses. While deficits are still high, they are about half of the last Bush budget. Obama has suggested a grand bargain that would include entitlements, but political dysfunction in the Congress has precluded such a deal.
I am looking forward to the Democrat congress being exposed as to how they collapsed the U.S. economy when they came to power in 2007 in order to get Obama into office.
Jim: I am looking forward to the Democrat congress being exposed as to how they collapsed the U.S. economy when they came to power in 2007 in order to get Obama into office.
The bubble in the securities markets was already well-established by 2007.
Case-Shiller Housing Index
SubPrime Mortgage Originations
And consider what happened on 9/11/01 - that changed the priorities somewhat.
Jlawson: And consider what happened on 9/11/01 - that changed the priorities somewhat.
Sure. Some additional spending was required, both to respond in terms of security, but also as a short-term stimulus. However, the Iraq War debacle wasted trillions, while Bush pushed for long-term tax cuts, both strongly procyclical, exacerbating the economic bubble.
People like you are why Hillary will win tomorrow, you are more effective than Zack. Zack works for a dollar a day to troll conservative sites, while you work for nothing to undermine your own party's choice.
And we thank you.
Just speaking as "one of the sellouts" who would be 'dealt with' after the election, I'm not a terribly huge fan of the alt.right people, particularly the couple of them who threatened me. Those are some nasty fleas the Trump dog picked up. Perhaps he shouldn't roll in the sh1t so often.
Hillary thanks you too.
But next time, remember that the Media Matters narrative calls for you say you wet yourself in fear at the bad words the right wingers flung at you. Otherwise, your credibility suffers.
I am not sure I know of any 'alt-right' people and not really sure who came up with the negative description. Could have been the left trying to smear everyone on the right. But if you would please indulge me and name some alt-right people it would be helpful. I truly cannot decide if I'm supposed to like them, hate them or not care about them.
That might be interesting, if it wasn't just showing the maximum rates of 2 specific tax categories instead of the distribution of taxes across the population. It might be interesting if it was informative, in other words - but as it is, it's just a poor example.
By the way, as a low information asshole, the ZMan is much more informative, entertaining, and interesting to read than anything I've seen of yours, so far.
And you're a loudmouth, self appointed "True Conservative" asshole, Zinc, who can't get enough action on your own piece of shit blog, that you have to jump over here, and carry on your one-man war against Trump and anyone behind him.
You used to be interesting, now you're just another douche voting for Hillary, because: Your Sacred True Conservative Principles.
So why not just shut the fuck up and go vote for her already. Oh wait. Right.
You're voting a third party candidate on principle. Got it.
The irony is that President Trump is the third party candidate.
Now that Obama has directly urged illegals to vote, I don't see how anyone can accept that an election of Hillary was not rigged and unlawful.
Ah, the new "Hillary's Watergate"!
Clinton Foundation Is The ‘Largest Unprosecuted Charity Fraud Ever’
Says Charles Ortel. On his blog, Ortel claims that the Clinton Foundation illegally veered from its IRS-authorized mission within days of Bill Clinton’s departure from the White House in January 2001
The original IRS application included the bylaws of the Foundation, which have a broad statement of Purpose: "The corporation may engage in any and all other charitable, educational and scientific activities permitted to an organization exempt from federal income tax under Section 501(c)(3) of the Code." As this is easily verified from public records, it's not clear that the author has any credibility in the matter.
Bird Dog: Nobody doubts that
Of course they do.
IN 2011 LAWYERS WARNED CLINTONS THAT THE CLINTON FOUNDATION WAS “MORE LIKE A POLITICAL OPERATION” THAN PHILANTHROPY
Heh. Note where the deceptively quote end. Here's the entire sentence.
“The Foundation (as opposed to its initiatives, which I have not reviewed) operates more like a political operation focused on immediate situations, tasks, and events, as opposed to a professional, strategic, and sustainable corporation committed to advancing its overall mission,”
"Political" refers to process, not purpose. And the point is that the memo was part of the process of reorganizing the Foundation to make the operation more accountable to its mission.
Doug Band Accuses Chelsea Of Using Clinton Foundation Money To Pay For Her Wedding:
The term was "resources" not money. As to what this means is unclear. Band was eventually forced out when the Foundation was reorganized to make it more accountable.
Zachriels: The term was "resources" not money.
Zack, I need to step in here an explain to these simple Farmers.
In our world, it is perfectly legal for a 501(c)(3) organization to divert "resources" to private use, as long as the resources aren't "money".
As we all know, the Clinton Foundation already owned a consider number of chairs, high class tents, wedding cakes, bridal jewelry and had flower arrangers already under contract. Its not like money earmarked for African drought relief was repurposed for glass walled toilets.
In fact, the Clinton Foundation is famous for its crockery.
The Reflexive Liberal: In our world, it is perfectly legal for a 501(c)(3) organization to divert "resources" to private use, as long as the resources aren't "money".
Generally not, though without more information it's hard to tell. At this point, we have one disgruntled person who was eventually forced out when the Foundation moved to regularize their operations.
Zachriels: when the Foundation moved to regularize their operations.
We rebuke you. The Clinton Foundation has never been "irregular" or in need of regularization. No one has been convicted of multiple felonies and the Foundation retains its tax-exemption which it would lose if there were any evidence of malfeasance. We are pure of thought and deed.
And our honesty is unimpeachable!
(Though understandably, it depends on what the meaning of "is" is.)
God bless Ed Snowden, Julian Assange, and a few others for Wikileaks. The reason Obama is so anxious to keep the Bush-to-Clinton-to-Bush-to-Obama-to-Clinton handoff going on is that once a change agent such as Trump gets in office, all the collusion and corruption that has infused our governments at every level will be exposed. The revolving door among the White House, Wall Street, corporate America, academia, media and lobbyists has become a tragedy, destroying our Republic and costing the taxpayers all the opportunities American at one time promised each new generation.
The rule of law no longer exists for these elites. An example is The Clinton Foundation and its various tentacles. Charles Ortel and Stefan Molyneux have attacked the issue:
youtube. (DOT) com/watch?v=ZFcEnRu-hY8
Trump is common sense. That is how I see it. Most of what he has proposed is obvious to the average American.
Is [Trump] any sort of thinker? Neither candidate is a thinker. One's ignorant and one is pure schemer.
Huh. I'd say tossing off boilerplate disclaimers like that in twenty words or less and expecting them to stand there, reasoning, isn't the most thoughtful thing I've seen lately either.
In fact, the whole NeverTrump movement is intellectually numb, uninformed, and as a-philosophical as it is unthought.
Want to know why? It's not hard, even if I too adopt a #NT attitude that the man's no "conservative" but without all the #NT presumptive nonsense and with some logical perspective. In other words, I could say this equally as legitimately as a liberal than as one of these ostensible "conservatives" we hear so much about defending Lyin' Ted and the Magic Republican Candidate that never, ever existed. Like this.
1. The right lost the country. That's correct, the right gave up as far back as 1913. Almost none of them know how and why, even with that year in plain sight;
2. As such, the right has handed the left rope. Yup, the right gave its destroyer every opportunity and most of its tools, save for the ones the right cannot bring itself to moral grips to use, to its sole faint credit;
3. Pursuant #2, the right has by now actually adopted fifteen or thirty major policies, programs, and/or institutions derived or intellectually inherited from leftism and, also by now, vociferously defends them as the statist failures they are. And as before, not one rightist in a hundred can enumerate them;
4. This all makes the right codependent. As with sub-twenty word quips designed to disclaim and distance for their own sake, the right has to lead off any commentary about the present Republican candidate - the guy more than brilliant enough that he, sans political experience, overwhelmed the entire sacred rightist machine - with these meaningless disclaimers about his presumed morality or his presumed decency or his presumed temperament, all of which it adopted from the left.
5. The right has no remaining perspective, meaning the right, true to this history, has no ability to sleuth out its own platform, such as it no longer has any clue, and actually philosophically idealize its ostensible principles before keeping the nation so trained so as to run viable candidates. The right couldn't do this to save its life and so it has not done this to save its own life;
6. The right has less knowledge of the Republican candidate than any it's run in the past yet the right is convinced that all the levers pulled in all the polls for all the other ones were for all time necessary capitulations while this one - the Big One - somehow is not. Nope, this one is different;
And on and on. This is the tip of that general iceberg and its the right, with all its bleating and carping and double think and double talk that's solely to blame for putting up not a single meaningful defense, candidate, or reason against its clear and present danger, against its Destroyer, all the while making gasping noises about the one guy who took the bull by the horns and ran probably the most wildly successful populist campaign on behalf of all the desperate, fed-up, last-ditch and a-political protesters against the state of dysfunction that threatens an entire nation.
THEY DID YOUR JOB FOR YOU.
But Trump? Trump is through all this somehow a moron. A moron for identifying what you never did, a moron for acting against it with his own time and treasure, and a moron showing all of you what you should have done half a century ago.
Trump the idiot. And you with your blogs and your rationalizations and your complaining and your once or twice a year emails to your congressmen about Solindra or the price of gas or reroofing the veterans hall or will there be a train into town next year and how much will it cost on Sundays.
So ask yourself which is the more effective.
See, you don't know what Trump even is, which is the only thing I'll agree with you on. But you don't know what you're really up against either, with a hundred three years of history to guide you and your feckless protestations while he's formulated the single most cutting, effective, energizing, and appropriately conservative message in any of your lifetimes. This moron has.
And that's what else we don't have in common. Because I can itemize what apparently you haven't bothered to even think about (and I did it without taking a partisan position because it's that obvious).
MissT gets it too.
Correction: the left handed the right rope, which the right happily accepted.
Sorry, I dashed that off because the whole #NT premise is so very, very flawed.
The problem for Hillary is that Trump is not going away even if she wins. Professional politicians like McCain and Romney know how to play the game. When they roll over and lose the election they just go back to their little gravy trains. Heck, if I remember correctly, Juan McCain didn't even bother to resign his Senate seat when he ran, so he had nothing to lose.
I don't see Trump fading back into the woodwork like nothing happened. So Hillary now has an organized group who will continue to fight her, with a leader, up to and past the inauguration. I don't think that is a situation that has happened in the U.S. before, except before the War Between the States.
Well it is 1:52 am, November 8, 2016. History will certainly be made this day. If Hilliary wins then we are well on our way to the Road to Serfdom. After eight years under Obama we should be getting used to it. However if Trump were to triumph, perhaps John Galt may actually re-appear, (I know, fictional character and all that but sometimes getting lost in good literature is easier then the reality of the day). God willing, may this great country be saved.
Have enjoyed the banter of you marvelous people. Such wisdom and great thoughts. Now we wait and watch and see what tomorrow brings.
I used to fly into Old Rhinebeck, a short dirt strip with a strongly sloped runway surrounded by trees, that had WWI aircraft shows every weekend. I wonder if it's still there, and if they closed it for the Clinton wedding.