Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[Kapture1]

Did Feinstein release the part where Fusion GPS took the fifth? Probably not. I guess if it comes down to Fox or vox....

Insane for her to do that. Especially since the point of a closed door hearing is other future whitnesses dont know what was said in prior testimony. That's now out the door, she has compromised this investigation, and of course Fusion is going to deny doing illegal shit or take the 5th, i didnt take Simpson's word for it in the NYTimes op-ed and i dont here either.

[Kapture1]

Pacing and leading. Master persuasion

[Ghengis Jon]

1) North Korea makes US excluded overtures in an attempt to drive a wedge between the US and SoKo because, frankly, it has no other options short of war.

2) South Korea participates as it can gain from talks. US not required.

3) Putin's cock holster is unhappy as these talks could lengthen the amount of time it can take to denuclearize NoKo. More importantly, he's not the center of attention.

4) SoKo throws a meaningless bone in order to stroke the megalomaniac's fragile ego, knowing full well the Orange Menace will claim credit anyway.

5) Moon Jae-in knows how to manipulate a spoiled, petulant child and demonstrates his skill on Chump.

[CGVT]

6)Trump's supporters eat it up. MAGA!

[Kapture1]

I wouldn't expect you to give him credit, just wanted you to know deep down that i was right, again, and instead of the world ending in nuclear war North and South are talking again. Where real results will happen.

[SeattleLionsFan]

Cool. What are the “real results” you expect will happen?

[Kapture1]

Cool. What are the ?real results? you expect will happen?

a unified, denuclearized Korea in 100 years.

for the time being a halt to the North's nuclear program. I want them to open up and start behaving like a normal country but that's going to take some time.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Jeff, that article you posted should be read by everyone. But I'll deal with the two points you make.

IMO, the single most important effect of the tax cut will be to teach this generation of darned fool socialists the power of the free market, and of free people using their own money to better their lives.

Tax cuts, historically, have produced some degree of economic growth in the short term but my perspective is that growth is not sustainable without compensatory government spending reductions and careful management of the money supply by the Fed. i.e., government presence, the degree of it arguable.

How much government, IMO, is appropriately bound by embracing the concepts ebodied here:

The purpose of the state is to keep society safe and strong; to protect us from outsiders and from each other; to maximize freedom in a way that is consistent with security and order and that advances the common good; to provide society's "mediating institutions" the space they need to thrive; to encourage equal opportunity for all citizens; and to make a decent provision for the poorest and most vulnerable. All of this is meant to allow people to flourish and to advance human happiness.

The case for limited government is rooted in this understanding of government's purpose. In most circumstances, limited government is preferable to intrusive government because the former advances the public good and serves the common interest. The Constitution places meaningful limits on government power for a reason — to prevent tyranny, yes, and to advance self-government, of course, but also to promote the general welfare and to form a more perfect union. Limited government deserves to be embraced because it is a means (a system of government) to an end (the happiness and flourishing of the people).

I can't agree with you that the single most important effect of the tax cut is to teach people you might not agree with a lesson about the evils of socialism.

BTW, good video ....... you and I are likely to disagree on the extent to which the government is to provide "mediating institutions" the space to thrive and to make a decent provision for the poorest and most vulnerable....(all of which) "is meant to allow people to flourish and to advance human happiness. As Madison said, "Justice is the end of government."

First, if citizens form a government and one defines roles for it, e.g., provide for the common defense, that costs money. Accordingly, the government has to tax it's citizens to raise that money. If the government establishes a mechanism to "make a decent provision for the poorest and most vulnerable", i.e., Medicare and Social Security, that money has to be raised and it IS, in this particular case, income redistribution. So, I can't see how you can characterize income redistribution, again, in this particular case, as a kind of socialist evil.

When Madison spoke about justice, he said, "Justice is the end of government." I tend to think of social justice not in terms of the clearly negative connotations of it in the video but rather as the kind of justice, obtained through limited government, for the benefit at the citizenry.

My view is that, in general terms, Medicare and Social Security, both entitlement systems, serve a justifiable purpose of government. However, affording them runs up against valid concerns of fiscal conservatives about their perception of social justice, ie., the income redistribution required to run them. It's here where the debate should be undertaken. The debate isn't about socialism v. free markets, it's about working to make what are justifiable government run systems sustainable while at the same time recognizing that there are limits to what citizens are willing to and should pay to keep them running.

The problem with the issues you raise is that you seem to like to frame them as battles between social liberals who seek social justice and by extension are dark hatted socialists, Marxists, communists or other derogatory terms, in western lexicon anyway, and free-market conservatives who are, by definition the guys wearing the white hats. It's divisive and while debate can be useful, it is the decisive nature of it, the black and white character that is assigned to it by both sides, that is counterproductive. Unfortunately, that is a correct characterization of the debate among those responsible for sorting it all out - our legislators.

2) I'd really appreciate your posting where you got your information that 52% of Americans own stock, and how much is down from 2008.

The link was provided in the post to which you refer but, I'll provide it again for you below.

https://www.npr.org/2017/03/01/51797...e-conversation

[iam416]

James Damore, the Google employee who was witchhunted out of a job, has filed a class action complaint against Google. The complaint is here: https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-co...-COMPLAINT.pdf

I really can't comment on the legal basis -- for example, it strikes me that the class is unlikely to be certified -- but the factual allegations ring entirely and completely true.

Woe be to anyone who dare point out the utter bullshit of the "diversity" rationales.

[Kapture1]

I remember when media outlets published his memo and purposely left off all of his citations to make it appear as these were rants from a bigoted, sexist white male rather than rational extrapolations and observations that are backed in hard science.

[iam416]

Yeah, if you read the complaint about the memo itself, how it was written, how it was posted, how many different people commented on it and offered insight...and actually read his memo....it's blatantly obvious what happened.

I didn't know (until now) that he had written the memo in response to a "diversity retreat" (lmao) that called for feedback -- he submitted it internally, received feedback and positive comments (including from HR!), edited the memo to incorporate the feedback, submitted it to another internal board, same process -- then, eventually, to a large internal board that eventually leaked it.

As I said, I don't know how strong his claims are. I'd be surprised if he can get the class certified (which means he loses) and Google can plausibly pass this off as firing someone for ideas, which they're free to do -- however, California apparently protects, to some degree, freedom of political association. In most states, you can get fired for disagreeable political beliefs, but in California that's apparently not true.

Whatever. The larger point is the "Google culture" -- which I wish was a caricature or farcical, but is, unfortunately, the future (and in some states, the present).

[iam416]

Also of some note, the Bundy Militia -- the group that took some issue with BLM and its agents -- win their criminal case after the Federal District Court judge, an Obama-appointee, finds that the government's withhold of potentially exculpatory evidence to be so egregious as to merit a total dismissal with prejudice (meaning there's no chance to refile).

[iam416]

President of South Korea: “I think President Trump deserves big credit for bringing about the inter-Korean talks, I want to show my gratitude. It could be a resulting work of the U.S.-led sanctions and pressure.”

[Wild Hoss]

The only google culture I see is the superb TV package and blazing-fast internet I get from them for cheap, with great customer service. Maybe Spectrum offers an inferior and more expensive PROG!-free product, heh.

[iam416]

Lit take.