Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Seriously though I am pretty sure I saw Michael Moore and... he's just awful. If you want to sink a protest though his involvement is probably a pretty good way to do it.
Progressives better learn, and learn very quickly, that celebrities are starting to subtract from, rather than add to, their causes.
I get such a cringe when some uber-rich celebrity starts preaching at me.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/20 01:24:38
Tannhauser42 wrote: @Prestor Jon
Just to address your bit about the Fed collecting less taxes for education: ideally, that money should help even out schools to ensure all children across the country have an equal education. If left purely to the states, then poorer states will have poorer education as they'll have less money per student compared to richer states. No child should be punished educationally because they live in state X instead of Y.
That's the ideal, anyway.
If the goal is to equalize funding for all schools why do the Feds tie funding to performance? Giving extra money to schools that are already successful and withholding funding from schools that are struggling or failing seems to be the opposite of equalizing schools, rich get richer poor get worse. Plus if schools/school systems consistently fail to meet the testing standards it's the state govt that takes control of the schools from local authorities the Feds don't nationalize failing schools to improve them they just yank their funding and let the states clean up the mess, which is usually too difficult of a task for the states to accomplish. And again while these schools are failing to meet the testing standards parents are still required to send their kids there so they're not being helped at all.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's always been like this every since the Federal government decided to stick it's nasty paws into what is essentially a State and local matter (education), playing fast and loose with the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. It's mostly just a means for cynical/greedy politicians to score brownie points with voters during Federal elections.
There have been calls to get the Feds out of the education business since the 1980's. And in my view, it's long overdue.
The great irony of conservative opposition to public education is that American conservatives pushed for it to begin with way way back in the late 19th early 20 centuries because the Catholics were opening up lots of great schools and how dare they teach Catholicism in school. Now conservatives oppose public education because the state won't teach Creationism in school XD
There's nothing inherently wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/20 01:36:02
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's always been like this every since the Federal government decided to stick it's nasty paws into what is essentially a State and local matter (education), playing fast and loose with the Interstate Commerce Clause to justify it. It's mostly just a means for cynical/greedy politicians to score brownie points with voters during Federal elections.
There have been calls to get the Feds out of the education business since the 1980's. And in my view, it's long overdue.
The great irony of conservative opposition to public education is that American conservatives pushed for it to begin with way way back in the late 19th early 20 centuries because the Catholics were opening up lots of great schools and how dare they teach Catholicism in school. Now conservatives oppose public education because the state won't teach Creationism in school XD
It's not public education that I'm opposed to. It's the Federal government being involved in it that I have a problem with.
If the goal is to equalize funding for all schools why do the Feds tie funding to performance? Giving extra money to schools that are already successful and withholding funding from schools that are struggling or failing seems to be the opposite of equalizing schools, rich get richer poor get worse.
Because the people who proposed, wrote, and passed that policy wanted to sabotage public education and then complain about how it doesn't work. It was impressive in itself with a bipartisan collection of Congressmen managed to quietly get rid of that stupid law, but indeed they then just dumped the problem down a level and didn't do anything to rectify the damage done. Much of the education policy history of the US os defined by being ignored on one side and purposefully sabotaged on the other.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
oldravenman3025 wrote: It's not public education that I'm opposed to. It's the Federal government being involved in it that I have a problem with.
I just think it's a very funny piece of trivia
There's a similar one with the railroads; Mid 18th century Republicans were real big on expanding the railroad, so railroads got huge amounts of public money to make more railroads, and continued to get massive subsidies up until WWII when the Republicans decided Highways were better and then blasted the railroads for wasting public funds for years and asked why the Federal government was spending so much money on corporate welfare (while proposing huge subsidies and tax breaks for the fledgling trucking industry) XD
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
Please elaborate.
Where does the rubber grind the road with federal education standards?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/20 01:44:47
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
Why does the Federal govt need some kind of overarching alcohol and tobacco enforcement powers over the states?
I'm not talking about keep the current scheme, but tobacco and alcohol are still major industries and there's a need for oversight and some of that is best managed at the federal level. Specifically I was referring to things like cigarette runners. New York's ability to keep people from smuggling tobacco products up I-81 from Georgia ends at their border, and Georgia's ability to help ends at theirs. A federal agency can get all parties organized and on board to make sure existing laws are being respected and followed.
And of course I'd point out that the last time the Federal government passed a law and expected the states to sort it out, we had 10 years of on again off again quasi-martial law throughout the South trying to get the point across that "sort it out" was not a gentle suggestion. The frank reality is that the states are no more noble than the federal government, and expecting them to be able to handle things themselves is like expecting five-year-olds to go unsupervised for two hours and not do something potentially harmful.
We've let individual states break Federal drug laws and legalize marijuana and everything seems to be working out fine.
I don't think it's fine. What point is there to legalizing marijuana, when you never know if a change in Federal attitudes will have some federal agency kick your door down and arresting you for possession and intent to distribute? What point is there in having weed be illegal if someone can just drive over the border and get all the weed they want? There is a point where "its a state matter" stops making any sense. There needs to be at least a basic national policy strategy for these things and that necessitates some kind of federal regulation/enforcement need even if it's a very small one.
The most confusing aspect of Federal firearms laws are the seemingly arbitrary distinctions the ATF makes between something that is legal versus illegal.
Agreed.
Why do we need the Feds to enforce a NY state sales tax? If NY wants to reduce cigarette smuggling they can stop having punitive sin taxes. If NY wants to punish cigarette smokers to the extent that they incentivize a black market whose demand incentivized an interstate smuggling operation to supply it that's a problem with the NY state tax policy not a concern for the FBI.
We tried to control alcohol at the federal level during prohibition and it failed. There is a ton of stuff that varies state to state that don't cause harm or require federal intervention. I can own guns in NC that I can't own in NY. I can smoke marijuana in Colorado that I can't smoke in Utah. I can drive with open alcohol beverage containers in my car in Texas and that's illegal in California. My car only needs a rear license plate in South Carolina but it would need front and rear plates in NJ. I can buy beer in a grocery store in Virginia but I have to go to a beer distributor to buy it in PA.
States are allowed to be different and the federal govt doesn't need to enforce an intrusive unnecessary level of conformity over issues they really don't have any jurisdiction over.
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Trump is a direct chain reaction response to the 2008 downturn, just as Obama was a hope and change candidate and Sanders received such support. People have been voting for change for almost two decades and have not been heard-at least to their satisfaction,which accelerated with the downturn. With each election the electorate decides to choose a more extreme version. Its a logical reaction. they will continue to elect stronger and stronger candidates to kick over all the ant piles until they get what they want.
Unless there are real changes, expect the new slew of candidates to be even more extreme.
What you're missing is that the primary driver of the negativity in the electorate comes from a political strategy shared by conservative media and the Republican party. They spew a constant stream of negativity no matter what is actually happening. This is where the Republicans ended up overplaying their card - after 8 years of claiming Obama was a radical secret muslim who wanted to round people up in FEMA camps etc... and that America was falling to pieces and being taken over by special interest minorities... is it any wonder that Republicans who tried to campaign with run of the mill Republican ideas got smashed by the guy who really was acting like the end of America was just around the corner?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
It's much easier to effect change on the state level. I have personally gotten involved in campaigns to convince local and state politicians to change or stop legislation that would negatively impact my town and our schools. I have zero chance of affecting cabinet appointments and federal policy. The large majority of Congress voting on Federa legislation doesn't represent me at all and forming a coalition of like minded voters across enough states to impact federal legislation is much harder than influencing legislation on the state level.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
It's much easier to effect change on the state level. I have personally gotten involved in campaigns to convince local and state politicians to change or stop legislation that would negatively impact my town and our schools. I have zero chance of affecting cabinet appointments and federal policy. The large majority of Congress voting on Federa legislation doesn't represent me at all and forming a coalition of like minded voters across enough states to impact federal legislation is much harder than influencing legislation on the state level.
And what, pray tell, will happen when the majority of people in your state adopt a harmful education standard, perhaps like the Holocaust is a myth, or unicorns are just around the corner, or it's safe to hunt humans in Maine?
(Not flame-bait, I'm genuinely curious)
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2017/01/20 12:03:55
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
It's much easier to effect change on the state level. I have personally gotten involved in campaigns to convince local and state politicians to change or stop legislation that would negatively impact my town and our schools. I have zero chance of affecting cabinet appointments and federal policy. The large majority of Congress voting on Federa legislation doesn't represent me at all and forming a coalition of like minded voters across enough states to impact federal legislation is much harder than influencing legislation on the state level.
And what, pray tell, will happen when the majority of people in your state adopt a harmful education standard, perhaps like the Holocaust is a myth, or unicorns are just around the corner, or Maine is a state setup for human hunting?
I'll have a smaller pool of people to persuade to see the error in their thinking than I would if the Federal govt set bad education policy. I would also need a smaller group of like minded people to organize a successful campaign to vote in new representation to overturn bad policy than I would if it happened on the federal level. I would also have an easier time having standing to contest state laws in state court than I would contesting federa laws in federal court.
jasper76 wrote: There's nothing wrong about federal education standards, unless your teachers and students are too dumb to meet them. So grab yourself up by the bootstraps and stop whining.
There is plenty wrong with Federal education standards, especially when it comes to the involvement of Federal politics, Federal money, and Federal overreach outside of their Constitutionally enumerated powers.
And as for the last part, I won't bite. Some seem to forget that OT is on probation. So, let's drop the attitude and keep it purely civil.
What makes State Politics, State money, and state overreach any better?
It's much easier to effect change on the state level. I have personally gotten involved in campaigns to convince local and state politicians to change or stop legislation that would negatively impact my town and our schools. I have zero chance of affecting cabinet appointments and federal policy. The large majority of Congress voting on Federa legislation doesn't represent me at all and forming a coalition of like minded voters across enough states to impact federal legislation is much harder than influencing legislation on the state level.
And what, pray tell, will happen when the majority of people in your state adopt a harmful education standard, perhaps like the Holocaust is a myth, or unicorns are just around the corner, or Maine is a state setup for human hunting?
I'll have a smaller pool of people to persuade to see the error in their thinking than I would if the Federal govt set bad education policy. I would also need a smaller group of like minded people to organize a successful campaign to vote in new representation to overturn bad policy than I would if it happened on the federal level. I would also have an easier time having standing to contest state laws in state court than I would contesting federa laws in federal court.
Yes, I do see your point. I don't trust State governments though, they are usually much worse than the feds, where controversies tend to level out.
Not sure what is the good answer here, to be honest.
The answer is NOT lower standards at the state level though. We are already dumb enough on the world stage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/20 02:56:16
Prestor, the whole point of federal education standards is to ideally keep every state on the same page. I don't know if you have kids or not or if you ever plan to move to another state, but if I had a kid in, say,, fifth grade, and we moved to another state, federal standards ensure he would roughly have the same knowledge as fifth graders in the new state, rather than being significantly ahead or behind.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/20 02:59:19
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Prestor Jon wrote: Why do we need the Feds to enforce a NY state sales tax? If NY wants to reduce cigarette smuggling they can stop having punitive sin taxes.
Because telling the states they can set their own policy, and then telling them not to complain that people are violating their policy is a bit hypocritical. A country built of a bunch of municipalities with no obligations to one another quickly ceases to be a country. I don't understand why you're jumping to the conclusion that I expect all states to be the same, or that I want some kind of overarching conformity on everything. Setting basic policy standards can be as simple as "all gun manufacturers must include a safety in their design", or as detailed as "vodka is an alcohol with a proof of x to y fermented in manner z from ingredients a, b, and c and bottled as d."
Let's say someone sells a batch of beer and it turns out it contains rat poison. People die in the state of Indiana, but the beer is made and sold in Nevada and distributed from there. Indiana can't just investigate a beer maker in Nevada. Now, Nevada can investigate the crime (and find that the manufacturer was reckless) but Nevada courts can't bring charges for deaths in other states and Indiana can't charge the manufacturer for selling bad goods in Nevada. The only thing Nevada can do is charge for violating state law and and reckless endangerment. And of course, what about the people who died in California, Utah, and Idaho, and the money the business was funneling to New Jersey mob? The only body that can actual handle all of that practically and Constitutionally is the Federal government. Crimes cross state lines, and Constitutionally that's the Federal government's job.
The states are not intrinsically better at everything at all levels, and just because the states can handle a given regulatory challenge doesn't mean they have no need for a federal regulator or investigative arm. Especially in a global economic environment where money and goods travel massive distances, it's kind of absurd to expect the state of Florida be be able to fulfill all the needs that will ever exist or even exist now on any issue, let alone something like alcohol or tobacco. Especially since these are goods that tend to be grown in one place, processed in another, and then manufactured into a consumer good in dozens of other places before shipping to markets all over the country and these steps can take place in completely different states.
NY state tax policy not a concern for the FBI.
I never said it was something for the FBI to do.
We tried to control alcohol at the federal level during prohibition and it failed.
I don't think its that we tried to control it at a federal level so much that we tried to ban it period. That was just doomed to fail (not that we learned any lessons from the experience).
Please show me, (a direct quote, audio or video) that the author used to support his thesis...
Okay, for starters we can go back to Perry's infamous gaffe, in which he forgot the name of the third department he wanted to close. That was the Department of Energy. Do you think Perry was saying he wanted the US nuclear stockpile dismantled? Or do you think he simply had no idea that the Dept of Energy maintained the US weapons stockpile? It's obviously the latter, so there's one bit of evidence that Perry didn't know what the Dept of Energy did.
For a second bit, here's a quote from Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist, advisor to Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and part of the Trump transition team for the Energy Department. “If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy. If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”
There's your evidence. We have a quote from Perry showing he had no idea what the Department of Energy actually did, and we have an advisor to Perry saying Perry had no idea what the job entailed. The story is solid.
And so can I now ask you to please rethink how you approached this story? You read something you didn't like, so you immediately wrote it off as fake news and challenged other people to prove the story. That is how you maintain an ignorance bubble. Instead next time go and research for yourself, open up to the idea that the story might be true, and then go and do some reading.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote: As an aside, show me a clean renewable that will take care of US energy needs and I will show you a snow blizzard in Southern Texas.
Junk argument. The idea that clean energy must be capable of covering all energy needs tomorrow, or else it should be ignored entirely is a false argument put up to try and dismiss making any progress in clean energy. A real and meaningful consideration would involve accepting any clean energy that is cost efficient (or close enough) because any increase in clean energy is a reduction in emissions.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/20 03:30:29
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Trump is a direct chain reaction response to the 2008 downturn, just as Obama was a hope and change candidate and Sanders received such support. People have been voting for change for almost two decades and have not been heard-at least to their satisfaction,which accelerated with the downturn. With each election the electorate decides to choose a more extreme version. Its a logical reaction. they will continue to elect stronger and stronger candidates to kick over all the ant piles until they get what they want.
Unless there are real changes, expect the new slew of candidates to be even more extreme.
What you're missing is that the primary driver of the negativity in the electorate comes from a political strategy shared by conservative media and the Republican party. They spew a constant stream of negativity no matter what is actually happening. This is where the Republicans ended up overplaying their card - after 8 years of claiming Obama was a radical secret muslim who wanted to round people up in FEMA camps etc... and that America was falling to pieces and being taken over by special interest minorities... is it any wonder that Republicans who tried to campaign with run of the mill Republican ideas got smashed by the guy who really was acting like the end of America was just around the corner?
...and watch the liberals and old school media lose their gak in a Trump administration.
Evidence #85664: That NYT hit piece on Rick Perry.
Rick Perry is an idiot, no inquiry required. The fact that he is set to head Energy and our nuclear system should horrify both conservatives, liberals, and progressives alike.
The man don't know gak about nuke.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2017/01/20 03:47:26
Please show me, (a direct quote, audio or video) that the author used to support his thesis...
Okay, for starters we can go back to Perry's infamous gaffe, in which he forgot the name of the third department he wanted to close. That was the Department of Energy. Do you think Perry was saying he wanted the US nuclear stockpile dismantled? Or do you think he simply had no idea that the Dept of Energy maintained the US weapons stockpile? It's obviously the latter, so there's one bit of evidence that Perry didn't know what the Dept of Energy did.
That's simply a gaffe in a heated 2012 Republican primary, while hopped up on pain meds for a recent surgery AND being poorly prepared for said debate.
For a second bit, here's a quote from Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist, advisor to Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and part of the Trump transition team for the Energy Department. “If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy. If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”
There's your evidence. We have a quote from Perry showing he had no idea what the Department of Energy actually did, and we have an advisor to Perry saying Perry had no idea what the job entailed. The story is solid.
The story is NOT fething solid. McKenna was NOT on the trasition team for about 4 weeks when Perry was tapped.
It's an obvious hit job over a non-controversial individual.
And so can I now ask you to please rethink how you approached this story? You read something you didn't like, so you immediately wrote it off as fake news and challenged other people to prove the story. That is how you maintain an ignorance bubble. Instead next time go and research for yourself, open up to the idea that the story might be true, and then go and do some reading.
Ignorance bubble my ass... I'm well informed on this...
Even the journalists who cheered on this story has repudiated it.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/20 03:45:43
whembly wrote: I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
I would certainly hope every fething politician who campaigned on the national stage to close a department was first briefed about what that department does. To me, that would be common sense.
Perry didn't get that briefing before he campaigned to close the Department, because Perry is an idiot and a political hack.
It's kind of funny that in a latter post you have a go at people complaining about Perry's selection because it's a 'non-contraversial' pick. I actually agree with that, not because Perry is a good choice, but because Dept of Energy is a run of the mill, business as usual administrative role. It's just that your arguments trying to defend Perry are so terrible I had to call you on them. You end up making a non-starter of an issue in to a win for the left because you put up really bad arguments.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2017/01/20 03:50:54
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
whembly wrote: I certainly hope every fething appointees get these briefing after accepting the nomination.
To me, that common sense.
I would certainly hope every fething politician who campaigned on the national stage to close a department was first briefed about what that department does. To me, that would be common sense.
Perry didn't get that briefing before he campaigned to close the Department, because Perry is an idiot and a political hack.
Amen. I don't spend much time nitpicking appointments, but a dunce in charge of our nukes is a nightmare waiting to happen.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2017/01/20 03:51:43
Frazzled wrote: If you believe thats why America got Trump you are living in a bubble and haven't learned anything from the election.
Really?
You have a "news" network that perpetuated around the clock coverage of crap like "Obama's not actually an American citizen" or "Black Lives Matter advocates for the death of police officers"...and you want to say that it's not a big factor?
naxium wrote: It's not as great as it's glory days when blue collar jobs were booming and there was less class/cultural division.
If that's what you want for a return for greatness, and you think Trump is going to do that, or even try to do that, then oh boy you are in for a very disappointing 4 years.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
...
"I think in my mind I know who it is," he said at a leadership luncheon at his hotel in downtown Washington, according to cell phone video of the event obtained by CNN. "I think you're going to be very, very excited."
Trump said he would be submitting a name from a list of 20 that he put out during the campaign.
"I put out the list of 20, all highly responsible and highly talented, very talented judges ... Replacing somebody that was somebody I had great respect for as an intellect, Justice (Antonin) Scalia," Trump said.
...
The announcement will come "within two to three" weeks after the start of his administration," he said.
Well... shoot... he's going to make the Turtle nuke the filibuster on SCoTUS pick.
Bet he's going with William Pryor... no way in hades that they'll get enough Democrats to vote for him...
I guess that if you're wanted to nuke the filibuster, the time to do it is early on your Presidency.... that seems like a calculation by Preibus and Bannon.
:sigh: I guess these parties won't ever learn that their 'majority' status isn't forever...
Please show me, (a direct quote, audio or video) that the author used to support his thesis...
Okay, for starters we can go back to Perry's infamous gaffe, in which he forgot the name of the third department he wanted to close. That was the Department of Energy. Do you think Perry was saying he wanted the US nuclear stockpile dismantled? Or do you think he simply had no idea that the Dept of Energy maintained the US weapons stockpile? It's obviously the latter, so there's one bit of evidence that Perry didn't know what the Dept of Energy did.
That's simply a gaffe in a heated 2012 Republican primary, while hopped up on pain meds for a recent surgery AND being poorly prepared for said debate.
For a second bit, here's a quote from Michael McKenna, a Republican energy lobbyist, advisor to Mr. Perry’s 2016 presidential campaign and part of the Trump transition team for the Energy Department. “If you asked him on that first day he said yes, he would have said, ‘I want to be an advocate for energy. If you asked him now, he’d say, ‘I’m serious about the challenges facing the nuclear complex.’ It’s been a learning curve.”
There's your evidence. We have a quote from Perry showing he had no idea what the Department of Energy actually did, and we have an advisor to Perry saying Perry had no idea what the job entailed. The story is solid.
The story is NOT fething solid. McKenna was NOT on the trasition team for about 4 weeks when Perry was tapped.
It's an obvious hit job over a non-controversial individual.
And so can I now ask you to please rethink how you approached this story? You read something you didn't like, so you immediately wrote it off as fake news and challenged other people to prove the story. That is how you maintain an ignorance bubble. Instead next time go and research for yourself, open up to the idea that the story might be true, and then go and do some reading.
Ignorance bubble my ass... I'm well informed on this...
Even the journalists who cheered on this story has repudiated it.
Except, AGAIN, you're ignoring Perry's own fething statements in his own confirmation hearing today! How many fething times does that have to be pointed out to you?! He fething said himself that he had to be told everything the DoE was responsible for before he changed his mind! That means he didn't fething know everything the DoE was responsible for to begin with! THAT'S the point of debate here, and you're refusing to even accept Perry's own words today.
"Through the darkness of future past, the magician longs to see.
One chants out between two worlds: Fire, walk with me." - Twin Peaks
"You listen to me. While I will admit to a certain cynicism, the fact is that I am a naysayer and hatchetman in the fight against violence. I pride myself in taking a punch and I'll gladly take another because I choose to live my life in the company of Gandhi and King. My concerns are global. I reject absolutely revenge, aggression, and retaliation. The foundation of such a method... is love. I love you Sheriff Truman." - Twin Peaks
Except, AGAIN, you're ignoring Perry's own fething statements in his own confirmation hearing today! How many fething times does that have to be pointed out to you?! He fething said himself that he had to be told everything the DoE was responsible for before he changed his mind! That means he didn't fething know everything the DoE was responsible for to begin with! THAT'S the point of debate here, and you're refusing to even accept Perry's own words today.
What was his own words... you show me that please.
The only thing I saw is that he regretted wanting to shut down that dept...
