Saturday morning links

Quicksearch

Blog Administration

Open login screen

RSS Readers

Saturday, February 4. 2017

The Circus Dead, Animal Rights Kooks Target Rodeo

NLRB memo: football players at private schools are employees

Photos: Sea cliff at Kamokuna ocean entry collapses

California: Easy to Love, Impossible to Do Business In

How the Teleprompter Changed Public Speaking

U.N. Official Admits Global Warming Agenda Is Really About Destroying Capitalism

Bummer: ‘Climate Change’ Will Kill The Groundhog Day Groundhog Or Something

Who are Those Refugees Australia Doesn't Want?

The Bureaucrats Think That They Don't Answer To The President

How does David Brooks get it so wrong?

‘Born In The USA’ Singer Bruce Springsteen Tells Australian Fans He’s Embarrassed To Be American

A Return to Constitutionalism

THERE ARE FASCISTS ON CAMPUS. PROTESTERS DON’T REALIZE IT’S THEM, NOT MILO YIANNOPOULOS:

"The hard left, which has become so utterly anthetical to free speech in the last few years, has taken a turn post-Trump's election..."

Rabid NYU Professor Melts Down, Orders Cops To Assault Conservative "Vice" Co-Founder Gavin McInnes

CNN’s Don Lemon and Robert Reich: Conservatives Masterminded The Berkeley Riots

Shameless vendors of "alternative facts"

Media freakout: Another day, another media-instigated panic over Trump

This is Joy Behar. Today on live television she called
Milo Yiannopoulos (flamboyant gay who likes black guys) a racist
homophobe.

Gunning for Gorsuch — liberals' new normal

Trump Short Circuits Washington:

So unlikely did the election of Donald Trump seem to Washington and its denizens that the reality of it still has not sunk in. All of the city’s worst traits — the self-regard, the group think, the obsessions with trivia, the worship of credentials, the virtue signaling, the imperiousness, the ignorance of perspectives and people from outside major metropolitan centers and college towns — not only persist. They have been magnified with Trump’s arrival. There is so much negative energy coursing through the city that circuits are overloaded.

AVI on Refugees

How France has become the number one target for extremists in Europe and has been repeatedly brutalised in
terrifying new war against terror

A Return to Constitutionalism

Posted by Bird Dog in Hot News & Misc. Short Subjects at 06:08 | Comments (60) | Trackbacks (2)

Trackbacks

Trackback specific URI for this entry

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Feb 05, 09:16

PingBack

Weblog: www.thepiratescove.us
Tracked: Feb 05, 09:23

Comments

Display comments as (Linear | Threaded)

So Kerry graciously agreed to take in a large group of Muslim sexual predators and trouble makers. Why am I not surprised .The people that push bringing in the Muslims need to suffer from their decisions at the hands of the "migrants" to see why we are trying to keep this country safe.

#1 JC on 2017-02-04 07:59 (Reply)

Back in 2003, the term "chickenhawk" rolled off the collective lips of the Hive. What's an analogous term for folks who want us to import savages, but who don't want to personally house those folks or otherwise have them in or near their own back yards?

#1.1 Bill Carson on 2017-02-04 10:18 (Reply)

1. Hypocrites
2. Asshats, snowflakes, dipshits, liberals, - - -

#1.1.1 Claritas on 2017-02-04 10:24 (Reply)

JC: So Kerry graciously agreed to take in a large group of Muslim sexual predators and trouble makers.

Yes, because we know all Muslims are sexual predators and trouble makers.

#1.2 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 10:34 (Reply)

You've heard of Rotherham in England?

#1.2.1 Sam L. on 2017-02-04 10:55 (Reply)

Sam L: You've heard of Rotherham in England?

You've heard of a place called America? Very violent place, murders and rapes. Guess that means Americans are a bunch of violent people.

It's called a faulty generalization, using an extreme example as representative of the group. The scandal in Rotherdam wasn't that there was crime, but that the criminal activity was allowed to fester. Consider the child-abuse scandal in the Catholic Church. It isn't that priests are more likely to offend, but that the Catholic Church allowed the problem to fester, a single priest often being responsible for hundreds of victimizations, rather than being stopped after the first incidence discovered. It's correct to hold the Church hierarchy to account for allowing the problem to fester. It's wrong to say that priests are all a bunch of pedophiles. Similarly, it's wrong to characterize individual Americans as violent because of endemic problems in their society; or Muslims for endemic problems in the societies from which they are trying to escape.

#1.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 11:20 (Reply)

apart from whatever revocable secret deal the australians hustled on little barry and al-Qerry, those islams have no right to enter the US.

if you don't have a right it can't be violated.

by assuming that islam trash have any entry rights, you turn this inevitably lame discussion to should these assumed rights be protected. this is yet another example of how you are totally dishonest in your rants here.

#1.2.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 11:33 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: apart from whatever revocable secret deal

"The Australian government said Sunday that it had reached a one-time agreement in which the United States..."

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: if you don't have a right it can't be violated.

We never mentioned a "right" for the migrants (though we presume they have basic human rights regardless of their immigration status). Rather, we objected to a gross overgeneralization based on religion.

#1.2.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 12:18 (Reply)

those islams don't have any right to enter the US if Trump revokes al-Qerry's secret deal. "revoke" means "deal's off". what are you or Oz or the islams going to do, sue?

if they don't have a right to enter, there's no debate, and there's only a debate because most people here haven't figured out how you dishonestly report facts and assume what you may not assume.

#1.2.2.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 12:48 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: those islams don't have any right to enter the US if Trump revokes al-Qerry's secret deal.

They never had a legal right, the U.S.-Australian deal notwithstanding.

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: if they don't have a right to enter, there's no debate

There is an argument, which has to do with the reliability of the U.S. government to make promises. If Trump wants the word of the President to be meaningful, then he must needs give deference to the promises of his predecessors. Of course, everything else is broken, so why not this too?

Another point is that many people think that justice must be tempered with mercy, but that is not a logical argument, so feel free to disregard it if you choose.

#1.2.2.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 12:54 (Reply)

the US will just have to take its chances with Oz wrath. your concern is obviously with the islam trash, not American diplomatic practices so your argument is facetious, at best.

justice is tempered with mercy constantly in the US immigration system, which anyone even casually aware of how things work knows. using American generosity as a strawman is a strange twist, even for you.

#1.2.2.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 13:30 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: the US will just have to take its chances with Oz wrath

That is apparently the Trump Administration's position, regardless of the impact it may have on the credibility of the U.S.

#1.2.2.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 14:59 (Reply)

The US government did not make the promise...John Kerry made the promise with Obamas likely approval. If the government made the promise then Congress would be involved. Congress was not involved along with a few dozen other decisions Obama made during his term. Executive orders do not stand, nor do private agreements, once your term ends they can be shelved. You do remember all the promises made to the South Vietnamese. The Democrats cut off nearly all financial support to them and let them sink under a Soviet furnished armor attack that ended their dreams of freedom.

#1.2.2.1.1.1.2 indyjonesouthere on 2017-02-04 14:25 (Reply)

indyjonesouthere: If the government made the promise then Congress would be involved.

Not all agreements between countries require treaties. While Trump can certainly renege on deals made during the Obama Administration, it undercuts his own ability to reach agreements, and the ability of future presidents as well. Of course, everything else is broken, so why not this too?

indyjonesouthere: The Democrats cut off nearly all financial support to them and let them sink under a Soviet furnished armor attack that ended their dreams of freedom.

You must be an American.

As was revealed in the Nixon tapes, the U.S. government knew that the South Vietnamese were doomed, but lied about it for political purposes. For every bullet the American provided the South Vietnamese government, another was siphoned off by the communists, so it ultimately didn't matter how many arms the U.S. sent to South Vietnam

QUOTE:

August 3, 1972:

Nixon: because I look at the tide of history out there, South Vietnam probably can never even survive anyway…

Nixon: It’s terribly important this year, but can we have a viable foreign policy if a year from now or two years from now, North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam? That’s the real question.

Kissinger: If a year or two years from now North Vietnam gobbles up South Vietnam, we can have a viable foreign policy if it looks as if it’s the result of South Vietnamese incompetence. If we now sell out in such a way that, say, within a three- to four-month period, we have pushed {unclear} Thieu over the brink– we ourselves– I think, there is going to be– even the Chinese won’t like that. I mean, they’ll pay verbal– verbally, they’ll like it–

Nixon: But it’ll worry them.

Kissinger: But it will worry everybody. And domestically in the long run it won’t help us all that much because our opponents will say we should’ve done it three years ago.

Nixon: I know.

#1.2.2.1.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 15:09 (Reply)

Zach............read the article. It tells why the island people are demanding Australia get those people away from their homes.

#1.2.3 JC on 2017-02-04 11:38 (Reply)

JC: It tells why the island people are demanding Australia get those people away from their homes.

No one wants a chaotic and ill-maintained refugee camp near their home. If you are referring to high rates of crime in the camp, well, that relates to our comment about allowing problems to fester.

#1.2.3.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 12:22 (Reply)

How the Teleprompter Changed Public Speaking

Just wait until they start using auto-tune and backing vocal tracks and they're up there lip-synching the speech.

#2 Jerryskids on 2017-02-04 08:08 (Reply)

You mean "MIlli-Vanilli" will be back, ala politics???

#2.1 Old Codger on 2017-02-04 12:21 (Reply)

See, when you get to the point of calling Milo Y. a racist homophobe, you've just given up on the idea of credibility. You've got your tight little group, and you can never add to it.

Jerryskids: I suspect people may watch political speeches 50 years from now and laugh at how underproduced they were, like TV shows in its very early days.

#3 Texan99 on 2017-02-04 09:33 (Reply)

QUOTE:

‘Born In The USA’ Singer Bruce Springsteen Tells Australian Fans He’s Embarrassed To Be American

I'm also embarrassed by the fact that Springsteen's an American.

#4 Bill Carson on 2017-02-04 10:10 (Reply)

You beat me to it. I'm also embarrassed that the folks in Hollywood are American. Of course the hypocrites never leave.

#4.1 B Hammer on 2017-02-04 10:26 (Reply)

I suggest a moratorium on refugees, immigrants and any visas that can or have lead to the visa holders staying in the U.S. legally or illegally. A four year (or more) moratorium so we can begin to assimilate all the immigrants we have takne in legally and to find and deport all the immigrants who are here illegally. Once they have assimilated, all speak English, all have jobs and aren't dependent on tax payers, all have severed their ties whit their homelands and feel that America is their home AND when all illegals have been returned to their home; then we should put this issue to a vote of the citizens. It isn't right that something as important as this is decided by a handful of bureaucrats and UN officials in secret. Let the American people decide if they want and need more immigrants. If after a national referendum the citizens decide that they do then set some goals for immigration and stick with them. If they decide that they do not want more immigrants then end it, period. IMHO if France or Europe wants to commit suicide that is their choice but if the U.S. is going to commit suicide at least let those who will suffer the most by this policy make that decision.

#5 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-02-04 10:19 (Reply)

I'd like to see you tell a Marine who married a foreign woman that you don't want him to bring his bride back to the US because you think she's an undesirable.

I'd pay to see what happens next.

do you ever think before you post?

#5.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 10:55 (Reply)

First, if it were known that they could not bring their brides home, few or no Marines would marry one. For those who had already done so, people are grandfathered in, because it is considered unjust to change the rules on people retroactively.

GWTW said nothing about "undesirable." He wrote about assimilation, then conscious decision.

You might take your own advice about thinking before writing.

#5.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-02-04 11:24 (Reply)

while GWTW is always in desperate need of help in debating anything, yours isn't the kind he needs.

ProTip: when Windy says he doesn't want them, he means they're undesirable. that's plain meaning, and pretending it isn't is lame.

if pigs could fly or if Servicemen were suddenly barred from marrying foreign women as they've been doing for, what, 200 years, we'd be arguing on why they should be allowed. that's a very different question, which you evade by with a handwave assumption. zachriels does this all the time and its no less dishonest. moreover, changing this reality (in fact, changing the burden of proof) requires the most inane presumption imaginable and your argument is grounded in this idiocy. any argument that's based on circular reasoning this gross or hand wave claim is a dead loser.

your argument, if either of you were honest, is why wives of servicemen shouldn't be allowed to immigrate and become US citizens.

there are other veterans on this forum, perhaps they'd chime in on yours and Gone Windy's ill-conceived nonsense.

#5.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 12:14 (Reply)

" when Windy says he doesn't want them, he means they're undesirable."

The classic non sequitur when you have nothing to respond to an argument.

I have no doubt that a lot of potential immigrants are desirable. The problem is that those who would open the flood gates need to get the camel's nose under the tent and then in secret commit the American citizens with accepting criminals and others who come for the free stuff. That is why it must be a moratorium and not a little of this and a little of that and exceptions here and court ordered reversals of policy there, etc. I happen to have faith in American citizens and honestly do not believe that there is anything an immigrant can do that one of our own citizens could not do as well. I think that tired old argument that some genius immigrant will save us from cancer or create business where no American could possibly do this is a fallacy. Put America first.

I also believe that having the UN or unelected judges flood our country with immigrants, legal and illegal and refugees that we know hide terrorists is contrary to putting America and American citizens first. Until we can fully employ our own citizens it seems criminal to me that the elite and bureaucrats would import non-citizens to take our jobs. While we still have able bodied people on welfare to bring in foreign workers is unacceptable. To fire all of Disneylands IT people and bring in Indian citizens under the H1B is criminal.

Most people wonder why Europe, especially Germany and France continue to allow massive immigration/invasion by refugees and ISIS fighters into their country. We see on the evening news the terrible price Europe pays for this stupid mistake. And anyone with two or more brain cells knows this will get worse. Knowing this should we adopt the European model where bureaucrats often in another country decide our immigration policy?

The constitution gives the president unitary power over the government. His primary responsibility is to protect the country, the borders and the citizens. No where does it say that the UN has this power. In the past 50 years ort so since Ted Kennedy and his fellow "put America last" Democrats opened the immigration flood gates millions and millions of immigrants have come here and many of them are still collecting welfare and SSI and many of them have not assimilated and will never assimilate. Many of them are criminals and have caused our citizens serious irreparable harm. Illegal aliens kill more people in this country every year then we lost in the entire Gulf War. Deaths from illegal drug overdoses is at record levels with most of these drugs being brought in by illegals from Mexico and I might add with the Mexican governments help. Is this what most Americans wanted? If not why should it continue?

#5.1.1.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-02-04 13:25 (Reply)

this is how I destroyed your fantasy:

I used an argumentation method taught in 8th grade and is used in arguments before the USSC to invalidate laws that overreach. you made a generalised proposition that was probably meant well, but had some glaringly stupid consequences when specifics are examined, like barring a Marine from bringing home a Korean wife for no other reason than she's a foreign national. which challenged you've still evaded. I guarantee you there are other veterans on this board who think that's a pretty fucking stupid thing to imply, and even more fucked up thing to defend once it was point out to you. but please, let's hear you out on this.

but instead of reflecting for a moment that maybe I have a point and a blanket ban on all immigration might be unworkable and that you should rethink the idea, you, and AIV, reflexively defend the indefensible and look like dumbasses for trying

your justifications are a mix of ignorance and generalities and inverted reasoning as I tried to explain to AIV.

I know you have problems with the Constitution, but you've got to live with it. there are immigrants in the US because congress says so. the USSC has approved the jurisdiction of immigration trial and appeals courts. immigration cases frequently end up before Article III courts because that's how the system works. there's no answer to your eternal whine that you don't like it that way, other than, change congress, get Trump to change how the administrative immigration agencies and the State Department work, change the Constitution or grow up and live with it. do you even know that Trump already issued an EO revising H1B visas? I doubt it.

for some specifics that make even less sense than your OP:

"The constitution gives the president unitary power over the government." what the f' does that mean??? you'd better pray the president never achieves "unitary power over the government".

"I happen to have faith in American citizens and honestly do not believe that there is anything an immigrant can do that one of our own citizens could not do as well."

ok, einstein, did you know that Einstein was an immigrant?

I know that conditions were chaotic after the civil war, but you should have learned this in grammar school.

#5.1.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 14:05 (Reply)

As recently as 1965, grades below E-4 (the generally lower age group from which most overseas marriages originate), at least in the Marines, weren't allowed to marry at all, foreign or domestic. Perhaps we should have kept that rule in place, thereby precluding the necessity of the above conversation.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1 XRay on 2017-02-04 18:48 (Reply)

no, he made a blanket bullshit demand that applied to all ranks without exception. believe it or not, officers have married foreign nationals.

windy and AIV are intellectually and morally unable to understand how broadly bullshitty his absurd demands are.

I'd still pay money to see either one to tell a Marine to his face that his wife is unwelcome in the US.

taking them apart is easier than drowning kittens.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-05 02:40 (Reply)

Ignoring your insults and misinterpretations I will answer each and everyone of the legitimate points you made...

But there were none.

But again the constitution does not require immigration it is indeed up to the congress and they can stop it if they have the will but I do not think that they will find their will until the next really big terrorist attack on our people. But, that is my point; I think that congress should place a moratorium on all immigration until we can deal with the mess that the massive immigration/invasion has already caused us. After we are able to do that I think there should be a referendum on this probably the most important issue of our time. I think the immigration policy has been poorly managed and that some of that was intentional to satisfy certain power groups and agendas. Everyone in the world knows that if they get a visa to come here to go to school that they will be able to stay. Everyone knows that if they come here pregnant and the birth takes place in the U.S. that they can stay and they will be able to bring their family members here as well. Our immigration policy is a shambles and getting worse everyday. I can guarantee you that if the world goes to war with Islam/Iran that many of the Muslim immigrants who came here will actively try to sabotage the effort and we will be faced with the choice of internment or losing the war. We have made a terrible mistake and we need to correct it before it bites us in the ass.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.2 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-02-04 18:53 (Reply)

Do your lofty opinions have some psychological barrier that prevents them sorting themselves into adult-sized paragraphs, Windy, or is that a malfunction of whatever copy-and-paste tool you insist on using when going on and on and on?

Because tl;dr.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.2.1 Ten on 2017-02-04 23:24 (Reply)

I'd still pay money to see you tell a Marine to his face that his wife isn't welcome in this country because she's a foreign national.

you took that position and now you own it, old man. you should have the intellectual honesty to defend it, but you won't and you can't and you're not man enough to admit it you got your tit in the wringer.

and I'm still wondering what you meant by this blather: "The constitution gives the president unitary power over the government." where do you think you're living?

#5.1.1.1.1.1.2.2 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-05 02:53 (Reply)

Your Marine argument is a red herring. It would be much more entertaining to see you tell the family and friends of those who died on 9/11 why we cannot control our borders.

You do understand what "executive power" means I assume.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.2.2.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2017-02-05 10:37 (Reply)

I think there should be a referendum on this probably the most important issue of our time.

A referendum. It's not even remotely 'probably the most important issue of our time'. It's not even a first-order symptom of 'probably the most important issue of our time'.

It's adjunct to a symptom of the most important issue of our time (as if our time was somehow unique). Being a tool about it anyway means that the unformatted, self-referential, book-length docu-dramas some apparently think constitute their great reflective blog-comment service to humanity haven't much weight.

#5.1.1.1.1.1.2.3 Ten on 2017-02-05 07:21 (Reply)

Shorter Donny:

1. The Constitution.
2. Immigration happens.
3. Lawyers and the altar of stare decisis.
4. ...
5. Code!
6. ...
7. Potus has no right to limit immigration because you idiot.
8. Open borders!

#5.1.1.1.1.1.3 Ten on 2017-02-04 23:42 (Reply)

I think Obama, based on that chart, would consider his presidency a resounding success. Better than he could have hoped for. His goal was to tear America down a peg or three; mission accomplished!

#6 B Hammer on 2017-02-04 10:30 (Reply)

QUOTE:

I think Obama, based on that chart, would consider his presidency a resounding success.

You guys are smart enough to know better than that. When Obama became President, the U.S. financial markets were near collapse, the economy was shedding jobs at the rate of hundreds-of-thousands per month, GDP was in free-fall, and deficits were over a $1 trillion. Since then, the U.S. has seen slow, but steady growth in GDP and jobs.

The Great Recession also caused severe social and economic dislocation, the effects of which are still in evidence today. The vast majority of the increased debt is due to the Recession. Median household income has recovered to pre-Recession levels. Regarding health insurance costs, according to a Kaiser study, rates of increase are lower than before, and lower than were projected absent ObamaCare. Furthermore, there are millions of people now covered by health insurance who were not covered previously.

As for poverty rate, by looking at the graph, it's almost as if something drastic happened around 2008.

#6.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 11:11 (Reply)

As a community organiser who cut his teeth on reducing loan requirements for minorities (hardest hit in the recession, BTW), and a member of the 2006 congress that slammed the final door on Sununu's longtime efforts to regulate derivatives, Obama was part of that 2008 collapse. I'm certainly not letting Bush off the hook for similar housing stupidity, but Obama cannot simply pretend to be rescuer here, and Democrats in general absolutely can't. "Slow," steady growth you say. Yes, very slow. Slower than any recovery has ever been in American history. Without the boost from fracking it would not be growth at all, but a slow decline.

#6.1.1 Assistant Village Idiot (Link) on 2017-02-04 11:32 (Reply)

Assistant Village Idiot: a member of the 2006 congress that slammed the final door on Sununu's longtime efforts to regulate derivatives, Obama was part of that 2008 collapse.

The bubble was fully formed in 2006. Not sure which legislation to which you are referring. There were efforts to rein in the GSEs. The Republicans controlled the Congress and the Presidency in 2006, and probably could have pushed through legislation. In any case, GSEs were late to the game, which was centered on Wall Street and the shadow market in securities.

#6.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 12:00 (Reply)

The only thing more pointless than "arguing" with the Gang of Z-bot(s) on finance and monetary policy would not knowing the subject itself. This we see all over the partisan Internets: Partisans not knowing the subject in any meaningful way whatsoever.

Not only are monetary crisis not the fault of any one particular administration, no one particular administration has done a damn thing to prevent them.

Just as planets circle suns, there are reasons for this, as complex as they may be.

Prove yourself brighter than a robot.

#6.1.1.2 Ten on 2017-02-05 06:26 (Reply)

Ten: Not only are monetary crisis not the fault of any one particular administration, no one particular administration has done a damn thing to prevent them.

While the economy is complex, human are not completely unable to influence events. The basic principles of pro-cyclical and counter-cyclical policies are understood. The Bush Administration enacted long-term tax cuts during an economic expansion, while also allowing the markets to run amok. That's a recipe for economic calamity.

#6.1.1.2.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-05 09:46 (Reply)

^ Here we have our case in point, Idiot, as reliable as the deflating dollar and exactly as predicted. The Z-bot(s) attempt(s) to conflate my monetary with economic - twice, even - as if the two were interchangeable. To which it adds some quasi-coherent hand-waving:

human are not completely unable to influence events.

As reliable as their underlying failure modes are, it almost appears that human [sic] created monetary systems in order for them to deconstruct economies from time to time. The idiot-bot(s) cannot abide this so it contends itself with peppering these dim conversations with rote hyper-partisan output gleaned from its limited programming.

The basic principles of pro-cyclical and counter-cyclical policies are understood.

Here the 'bot(s) takes a complete flyer, hoping its 'Google-it!'-level research suffices as the Grand Unified Science of Markets or some comparable rubbish completely unrelated to either the broader, fuller reality of the situation - the two-cent dollar being the primary clue hiding in plain sight - or to my point.

The Bush Administration enacted long-term tax cuts during an economic expansion, while also allowing the markets to run amok. That's a recipe for economic calamity.

And finito. Here the Z-bot(s) issue(s) another bald-faced denial of fact and reason so transparent it's not even a decent diversion.

So ends the lesson, Idiot. Argue with the robot not you must.

#6.1.1.3 Ten on 2017-02-05 10:02 (Reply)

Ten: As reliable as their underlying failure modes are, it almost appears that human [sic] created monetary systems in order for them to deconstruct economies from time to time.

In fact, economic cycles had been attenuated since the Great Depression, until the Great Recession.

Ten: hoping its 'Google-it!'-level research suffices as the Grand Unified Science of Markets

You aren't making a coherent point. Are you contesting that pro-cyclical policy tends to exacerbate the market cycle? Or are you just allowing your hands to flail uselessly?

#6.1.1.3.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-05 10:48 (Reply)

...although I'll add, Idiot, that the Z-bot(s), when sufficiently wound up in it's program's endless loops, will attempt to get personal. This 'hand-waving' routine of its runs immediately after the line of code that invokes utter intellectual dishonesty.

I point this out only to suggest that it is quite possible to plumb it's meager depths and get it to churn out robot's equivalent of a mea culpa, but you will have gone well past the point of its limited coherency. It takes patience and an hour or so to burn.

The trick is to never debate it on its terms. It's program is rudimentary, but it is quite adept at entangling the unwary in endless diversions for as long as s/he's willing. The way to win is not to play. Simple, not unlike machine language itself.

Anyway, there you have it. No monetary theory whatsoever. They figured the usual target blog they uinleashed the thing on wouldn't know the difference and they were almost right. Realize that it's got that BUSH LIED floppy forever wedged in it's little 5" drive and you'll be all right.

#6.1.1.3.1.1 Ten on 2017-02-05 11:24 (Reply)

Notably, you didn't comment on the topic of the thread.

#6.1.1.3.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-05 11:34 (Reply)

The difference of 50 years is that the people in the left photo are the ones teaching the people in the right one.

#7 Ken in NH on 2017-02-04 11:10 (Reply)

RE AVI on Refugees

why should any but a narrow range of refugees be given legal permanent residency instead of temporary protected status (they go home after the danger is over)? the constitution gives congress the power to set quotas for permanent immigration from specific countries and geographical areas. the question of whether to permanently import vast numbers of islams is something that congress should decide and congress members be responsible to their constituents for.

#8 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 11:20 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: why should any but a narrow range of refugees be given legal permanent residency instead of temporary protected status (they go home after the danger is over)?

In most cases, it will be years before the home country is stable enough, to not only be safe, but to create the opportunity necessary to reintegrate people returning. Meanwhile, people will work, build new lives, and children will grow into adults adopting the culture of their new homes. It's also an opportunity for a society to integrate new ideas and cultures. While this process can be difficult, it has long-term advantages. One reason Britain is still so successful generations after the end of their empire is because of all the international contacts they have integrated into their society.

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: the constitution gives congress the power to set quotas for permanent immigration from specific countries and geographical areas.

Sure. Congress has decided at this point to not discriminate against ethnicity, but to take cases on their individual merits.

#8.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 11:27 (Reply)

Syria, Yemen, Somalia and the Sudans are already on the temporary protected status list, and temporary status might last for years, as it has with other countries on this list. so clearly length of stay is not a deciding factor in permanent / temporary status. and whether their whelp were imported or born here, the Development, Relief, and Education for Alien Minors and the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals are dead or soon to be dead, so the weak "anchor baby" myth isn't going to save them either. cherry picking exceptions that are not germane to this general discussion will not strengthen your argument.

"discrimination" is a tantrum word for you people. in fact, discrimination is unlawful only when set in a certain kind of context. congress sets quotas and controls entry. notice there's a marked preference for certain kinds of immigrants and visitors. notice its easier to get here from England than from Syria. that's "discrimination" in your playbook, but its not unlawful.

my point is that AVI doesn't appear to know of or understand the difference between "temporary" and "permanent", and people like you who want unlimited islam immigration easily exploit this.

#8.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 11:56 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: "discrimination" is a tantrum word for you people.

Actually, the word "discrimination" is written into the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, "no person shall . . . be discriminated against in the issuance of an immigrant visa because of his race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of residence".

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: in fact, discrimination is unlawful only when set in a certain kind of context.

That's right. Discrimination other than race, sex, nationality, place of birth, or place of resident, is allowed. For instance, the law allows discrimination based on criminal background, skills, needs, etc.

#8.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 12:07 (Reply)

irrlevant observations won't advance your argument either, and, as always, evasions noted.

#8.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 12:52 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: irrlevant observations won't advance your argument either, and, as always, evasions noted.

The question was "why should any but a narrow range of refugees be given legal permanent residency instead of temporary protected status (they go home after the danger is over)?" We directly addressed that question: Over the stretches of time involved, people build new lives in their new homes, and their country of origin is rarely able to accept large numbers of returning refugees anytime soon after hostilities have ended.

#8.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 12:58 (Reply)

evasions noted again. you were told that length of time spent here isn't dispositive for temporary status. denying it makes you look desperate, as desperate as the Coming Ice Age Deniers.

once you revert to the "we" self-reference, its an unconscious sign that you realize you're cornered and defeated. it happens too often to be anything other than that.

#8.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-04 14:09 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: you were told that length of time spent here isn't dispositive for temporary status.

Time isn't legally dispositive, but it is as a practical matter. For instance, sending someone a teenager back to Mexico who has lived in the U.S. since they were a toddler may be a legal option, but hardly a practical one.

#8.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 14:58 (Reply)

you haven't given enough facts to evaluate his chances at cancellation of removal.

but that's how you people work. of course, you don't need to understand immigration law, all vermin are welcome here in your hive mind and your argument is concocted that way. the sparsity of facts, the words "teenager" and "toddler" code for "save the chilrun" because your idea of the punk is a DREAMERy, doe-eyed youth who washes windows to save for kollege. amirite?

hypothetical: a 19 year old teenager with multiple narcotics convictions and aggravated felonies; identity thief and spousal abuser (I'm covering all of the basic grounds for kicking his ass out of the country) is going back to mex, even if he hasn't been there for 18 years.

#8.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A on 2017-02-05 03:16 (Reply)

The Z-bot(s) more pressing concern is if it can make sweeping generalizations about how it 'thinks' tiny nations may view the US in order to genesis this frightful sword of globalist-populist Damoclean onerousness back to an evil potus. Because if we lose a robot's file of certain opinions Down Under we might as well pack the whole thing in.

And if that didn't get me reconsidering my very basis for existence I can't imagine what will.

#8.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ten on 2017-02-05 09:47 (Reply)

Thought Kriminal No. 392342-A: you haven't given enough facts to evaluate his chances at cancellation of removal.

It's a political question, not a legal one. The law is that Dreamers are not legally residing within the U.S. The political question concerns the best way to handle the situation.

#8.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.2 Zachriel on 2017-02-05 09:48 (Reply)

QUOTE:

CNN’s Don Lemon and Robert Reich: Conservatives Masterminded The Berkeley Riots

Bird Dog: Shameless vendors of "alternative facts"

To be fair, Reich said he wouldn't rule it out, not that he was reporting to be true. Apparently, it was a group of off-campus anarchists, called the Black Bloc, which contradicts the claim above about "Berkeley Students Riot". Was that "fake news"? Or just propaganda?

#9 Zachriel on 2017-02-04 11:35 (Reply)

8 US code 1182 inadmissible aliens will keep a lot of the so called refugees out if applied. A copy of the code can be found at law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/8/1182

#10 indyjonesouthere on 2017-02-04 15:10 (Reply)

Animal "rights" kooks went after the circus and now want to go after the rodeo?

Well, maybe clowns and other performers didn't fight back that hard; but, Cowboys?!

Since some of these guys ride bulls for a living, PETA and other nuts might be in for a surprise.

#11 charles on 2017-02-05 13:50 (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

Saturday, February 4. 2017

Saturday morning links