Monday morning links

If any of you live in NJ, we could discuss me purchasing your magazines. I wish I had the space to store yours until the law is repealed. 18 months in prison and up to $10,000 in fines or both. Yikes.

#1 Dangerous Dean on 2018-12-10 08:08 (Reply)

The purpose of these laws is to intimidate honest citizens. You only have to enforce it a few times and the citizens will get the message. The left (socialist/communist) must have gun control because their plans cannot succeed if we are free they will require that we are serfs.

The correct way for citizens to handle this is to test the law in court and bring it to the SCOTUS. Until and unless we do this the left leaning politicians will continue their inroads into our constitutional rights.

#1.1 OneGuy on 2018-12-10 11:38 (Reply)

And when SCOUST upholds it? What's a freedom loving man to do?

One day you're an honest citizen, doing your best to stay on the right side of the law, the next day you are a criminal. And what have you done? Does the crime really fit the punishment? Seems like there is something in the Constitution about that. But the new Living Constitution? That is completely up to what the tyrants in robes decide it it is. Don't you just love democracy?

#1.1.1 B. Hammer on 2018-12-10 12:18 (Reply)

What the freedom loving citizen should do is act before it gets that bad. We elected the presidents who put anti-constitutional judges on the bench. We elected the legislators and congress that passed anti-constitutional laws. We have already screwed up that responsibility. There is still time to correct this in a lawful manner BUT it may well be that it is too late and/or not possible. Make no mistake the other side is organized and is working hard to take our constitutional rights from us. A good example of this is the 9th circuit court. Whenever an NGO dislikes a law or lower court ruling they take it to court in the 9th circuit. They judge shop by filing the case and if they don't get a judge they know to be sympathetic to them they withdraw and try again. They succeed because of this and we lose because we are not organized on not willing to fight for what we want.

There are two choices remaining assuming we continue to circle the drain: 1. Begin targeting judges, politicians and activists on the left. 2. Civil war. Do we have the guts for either of these choices??? I don't think so. I think that we will just sit in our comfortable chairs watching the country devolve into anarchy on the TV and complain to each other.

#1.1.1.1 OneGuy on 2018-12-10 17:35 (Reply)

What is Groupon? (assuming this is a serious question)

Groupon is an online discount promotion site. It allows businesses to advertise deep discounts for products or services without putting those prices on their own website. You buy the discount or gift certificate from Groupon, and then present the receipt to the merchant when you purchase the product or use the service.

#2 Christopher B on 2018-12-10 08:38 (Reply)

Says a lot they've got to go to Groupon to try to boost ticket sales.

I'd say her 'Expires By' date was 2016. She doesn't have much in the way of political capital any more. There's folks who venerate her - but her loss in 2016 destroyed almost all of her current and potential influence. And I think there's pretty much no chance she'll make it past the D primaries, no matter how much they manipulate the superdelegates. That was a trick they could do once - and the Bernie Bros will be screaming bloody murder if they try.

#2.1 JLawson on 2018-12-10 10:29 (Reply)

For Bill, it's Grope-on.

#2.2 Sam L. on 2018-12-10 13:24 (Reply)

This one's for feeblemind and Zachriel in regard to their Brexit go-round in last Wednesday's Wednesday morning links:

European Court of Justice rules UK can unilaterally revoke Article 50 and halt Brexit

Not like leftists to throw sand in the gears at the 11th hour. Who knows, maybe Brexit sexually assaulted Christine Blasey Ford at some undetermined time and place in the past?

#3 Bill Carson on 2018-12-10 09:13 (Reply)

Thanks for thinking of me Bill.

I am not surprised. I still don't believe The Ruling Class, and particularly the bureaucracy wants Brexit to happen.

I readily concede that the Brexit may still go through, but I don't believe the contest is over.

How many times have we seen the will of the voters overturned by the judiciary or a bureaucratic rule?

We'll see.

#3.1 feeblemind on 2018-12-10 10:22 (Reply)

You're welcome feeblemind.

I'm with you all the way: Brexit may very well go through in either a soft or hard manner, but the Ruling Class really seems to prefer that it not.

We will indeed see.

#3.1.1 Bill Carson on 2018-12-10 10:36 (Reply)

Bill Carson: This one's for feeblemind and Zachriel in regard to their Brexit go-round in last Wednesday's Wednesday morning links

Z: Not sure what else you can foresee, whether a hard Brexit or a mutually agreed upon soft Brexit. Another Brexit vote is unlikely. Even if there were another vote, it's not clear the EU would allow Britain to change directions at this late date. The legal mechanisms for Brexit are in motion.

That has now been clarified: The EU will allow Britain to reverse course and stay in the EU. It would be interesting if, after all the brouhaha, that Britain ended up staying in the EU. That still seems unlikely. Our original statement stands, given the update.

feeblemind: I still don't believe The Ruling Class, and particularly the bureaucracy wants Brexit to happen.

Most do not, as it will likely result in significant market disruption and a loss of GDP.

feeblemind: How many times have we seen the will of the voters overturned by the judiciary or a bureaucratic rule?

In Britain, parliament is the supreme authority.

#3.2 Zachriel on 2018-12-10 10:31 (Reply)

QUOTE:

The EU will allow Britain to reverse course and stay in the EU. It would be interesting if, after all the brouhaha, that Britain ended up staying in the EU. That still seems unlikely.

Did the European Court of Justice ruling increase or decrease the likelihood of Brexit occurring?

#3.2.1 Bill Carson on 2018-12-10 10:46 (Reply)

Bill Carson: Did the European Court of Justice ruling increase or decrease the likelihood of Brexit occurring?

Mostly, it increased uncertainty. However, on balance, it decreased the likelihood of Brexit because there is a small chance Britain may change directions. Parliament could do so unilaterally, but that would be so undemocratic that there would be a huge political reaction, and call into question British democracy. To avoid this, a new popular vote would be required. Re-voting on something already decided would also generate an adverse political reaction. We're still left with Brexit of some sort.

Meanwhile, UK Prime Minister Theresa May postpones Brexit deal vote

#3.2.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-10 11:08 (Reply)

Zach thinks Brexit is a done deal.

I believe that the possibility of some sort of renege or double cross still exists.

Bottom line is Zach trusts Government to do the right thing.

I do not.

#3.2.1.1.1 feeblemind on 2018-12-10 12:44 (Reply)

feeblemind: Zach thinks Brexit is a done deal.

Just a high probability of either a soft-Brexit or a hard-Brexit. We asked what you thought might be the alternative result.

feeblemind: I believe that the possibility of some sort of renege or double cross still exists.

Unlikely, but not sure how that would play out, short of a new popular vote. Do you consider May's Brexit deal to be a Brexit?

feeblemind: Zach trusts Government to do the right thing.

Not sure that the government has any choice short of a new vote, and that will also be destabilizing. If the British people expressed a changed mind through a popular vote, would that be the "right thing"?

#3.2.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-10 13:37 (Reply)

Do you consider May's Brexit deal to be a Brexit?

As pointed out in the article linked last week, it's not just 'Remain' under another name but an even worse situation than a hard exit.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1 Christopher B on 2018-12-10 14:55 (Reply)

Christopher B: As pointed out in the article linked last week, it's not just 'Remain' under another name but an even worse situation than a hard exit.

A significant problem is a divided Ireland. Brexit implies the end of free movement of goods and people from EU to UK, and that would imply a hard border between the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland, but a hard border is precluded by the deal that brought peace to Ireland. As pointed out on the previous thread, not sure how you square that circle.

#3.2.1.1.1.1.1.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-10 15:00 (Reply)

Why are we exporting oil? It sits in the ground until we need it and it is the lifeblood of our economy. But we are exporting it as fast as we can. Why? Why not just pump ot as we need it and make it last longer? Sooner or later the "excess" supply of oil will run pout and we will be dependent on foreign sources again. So why would we export it???

#4 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-12-10 09:57 (Reply)

GoneWithTheWind: Why are we exporting oil? It sits in the ground until we need it and it is the lifeblood of our economy.

Exports only represent a small percentage of total production. Furthermore, it's a market, so businesses act in their own self-interest. There a lot to be said for selling the oil, reinvesting, and growing richer over the long run.

When you say "we", do you mean the U.S. government should restrict exports?

#4.1 Zachriel on 2018-12-10 10:35 (Reply)

Absolutely restrict exports. The U.S. government should always put the interests of U.S. citizens. the U.S. economy and the U.S. sovereignty ahead of profits. Oil is a strategic asset and should be treated such. It is interesting that for decades we bought oil overseas and stored it in salt domes in Louisiana at a considerable expense because it is a strategic asset.

Make no mistake, the U.S. will run low on oil and when we do the citizens and our ability to defend itself will suffer so for that reason it is incredibly stupid to allow export of our oil.

#4.1.1 GoneWithTheWind on 2018-12-10 11:30 (Reply)

'Oil' is not a monolithic commodity. There are a host of grades and specialties within the generic crude oil. Over the years, US refineries have specialized in refining the almost tar like heavy grades from oil sands and sulfur-rich sour grades because those were cheapest and least likely to be interrupted. This is one of the reasons for the switch to rail transport of crude because pipelines located where crude was produced weren't directed at the refineries that could handle the crude coming out of Canada. You can't just switch from one input grade to another, either. It benefits us overall to export the lighter grades to foreign refineries that used to be dependent on supplies from the Mid East. We lessen the flow of money to unfriendly regimes, provide jobs in our oil industry, and keep assets that we have in place productive.

#4.1.1.1 Christopher B on 2018-12-10 12:21 (Reply)

That was already done with Alaska crude. The requirement was that it had to be refined, not exported. Which led to the building of 3 refineries in NW Washington. Our gas price is 30-50 cents higher than prices inland that get theirs from wells in the Rockies region.
Gives us the problem of a "free" market that is not Free.
Now we get oil trains to feed these refineries as Alaskan production declines. Some people want the refineries removed because environmental impacts. Keep the jobs and commerce (and tax base).
That's what I don't understand about Canada: Build your own refineries, create higher value jobs, move less volume of higher value product.

#4.1.1.2 Jerry on 2018-12-10 14:03 (Reply)

It's really easy to over-simplify the oil markets and come to the wrong conclusions. We have entire administrative agencies whose prime function is to estimate oil storage and production, and their wrong every week.

The USA is and will remain a net importer of petroleum, until we extract our heads from our collective butts and conclude that a well-run nuclear power system is the cleanest and safest option. The only thing missing is the political will to make it so.

#4.1.1.3 Aggie on 2018-12-10 14:12 (Reply)

Doh! "They're" wrong every week.

#4.1.1.3.1 Aggie on 2018-12-10 14:13 (Reply)

Because we value the money we can get for it today (and the non-oil products we can buy with the money today) more than the value we think the oil will have in the future. Anyone who thinks it will be better in the long run to hang onto the oil as a strategic reserve is free to hang onto it: that's what speculation in commodities is about. It's also known as hoarding when it's unpopular. The "we" in your question assumes that this is a public decision, but it's actually a decision of the people who invested money and effort in extracting the oil.

#4.2 Texan99 on 2018-12-10 11:49 (Reply)

Tragedy of the commons

#4.3 FrP on 2018-12-10 12:39 (Reply)

We're selling it to our good friend, Mainland China.

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-asia-oil/how-soaring-u-s-oil-exports-to-china-are-transforming-the-global-oil-game-idUSKBN1FT14O

#4.4 Jim on 2018-12-10 17:35 (Reply)

As the Clintons political capital dwindles, the sharks will circle.

Hopefully some whistleblower will shed some light on the Clinton child trafficking ring. They have hell to pay for all the human destruction they have wrought.

#5 Rusty on 2018-12-10 11:44 (Reply)

"it's actually a decision of the people who invested money and effort in extracting the oil."

But should it be? Should we pursue policies that will indebt us and make us dependent on China and The Middle East? Should we allow billionaires to buy congressmen and make policies that will make them more billions and bankrupt us as well as make us vulnerable in a dangerous world?

I just got back from a trip all over the South West. I paid $2.35 for gas in AZ and $4.98 in California. These prices are not accidental they are the result of policy decisions made in back rooms without our input. Should we ignore it until the day gas becomes unaffordable to the common man?

#6 Anon on 2018-12-10 17:49 (Reply)

"Jordan Peterson update: The more they hate him, the more popular he becomes"

Yes, the "progressives" were counting on him resigning into oblivion.

Oh dear.

And so the one great foolproof law of "political science" kicked right in again: the Law of Unintended Consequences.

#7 JJM on 2018-12-10 18:37 (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, December 10. 2018

Monday morning links