Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[AlabamAlum]

Israel given largest aid package in history. Israel unhappy. Says Americans should be giving it far more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...aec_story.html

Yeah, all the recipients of our aid can be disappointing; however, make no mistake, we give them (and everyone else) aid -not due to some misguided sense of altruism- but because we feel it benefits U.S. interests. And we've been doing it for 70 years or so now. Republican, Democrat, makes no difference who's in office.

[Wild Hoss]

The reason for that decision to essentially lie to the American public is the elitism that comes from high up in government that argues people won't or can't understand our strategic thinking ......

...or that they simply won't buy into military adventurism. The Bush Administration knew the argument that "We're going to to turn the ME democratic at the point of the bayonet" wouldn't sell with the American people.

So they had to a 180, and demonize Ronnie's junkyard dog.

[Mike]

Exactly.

[Wild Hoss]

Israel given largest aid package in history. Israel unhappy. Says Americans should be giving it far more.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/world...aec_story.html

Over months of secret negotiations that picked up steam late last year, Netanyahu was holding out for as much at $5 billion a year, according to accounts in the Israeli news media.

"Holding out" for...our money. Jeebus.

[Da Geezer]

I don't think an inequality argument is countered successfully by saying everybody got richer.

Fair point. I wasn't trying to counter an inequality argument. But if you insist. . . .

http://www.wsj.com/articles/phil-gramm-and-michael-solon-how-to-distort-income-inequality-1415749856

If we wish real equality of outcomes, then we should structure our society as North Korea does. That country has real income equality.

The whole income inequality argument came about when the left decided they could no longer effectively challenge the success of supply-side economics in both the Reagan and Clinton years. Plikitty provided the theoretical underpinnings for the argument.

As long as I am better off than before, why should I care that others have more than I do? Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have made my life better. I don't care what their income is. Anyone who does care has to believe in a fixed pie as far as GDP goes.

[Da Geezer]

Well, Hoss, again, the facts:

in?vade inˈvād/Submit

verb

(of an armed force or its commander) enter (a country or region) so as to subjugate or occupy it.
"it was all part of a grander French plan to invade Ireland"

synonyms: occupy, conquer, capture, seize, take (over), annex, win, gain, secure; More

enter (a place, situation, or sphere of activity) in large numbers, especially with intrusive effect.
"demonstrators invaded the presidential palace"
synonyms: overrun, swarm, overwhelm, inundate
"every summer, tourists invaded the beach"
(of a parasite or disease) spread into (an organism or bodily part).

You're drawing a distinction without a difference. That is what lawyers do.

[Jeff Buchanan]

Fair point. I wasn't trying to counter an inequality argument. But if you insist. . . .

http://www.wsj.com/articles/phil-gramm-and-michael-solon-how-to-distort-income-inequality-1415749856

If we wish real equality of outcomes, then we should structure our society as North Korea does. That country has real income equality.

The whole income inequality argument came about when the left decided they could no longer effectively challenge the success of supply-side economics in both the Reagan and Clinton years. Plikitty provided the theoretical underpinnings for the argument.

As long as I am better off than before, why should I care that others have more than I do? Bill Gates and Mark Zuckerberg have made my life better. I don't care what their income is. Anyone who does care has to believe in a fixed pie as far as GDP goes.

Here's my response to what you are offering above.

Those of us that live in the 1%, according to Maslow, are operating on the top or 5th level of his Hierarchy of needs - Self Actualization. 99% are operating somewhere else below that with too many in our country and world wide operating at the lowest levels of meeting physiologic needs (something to eat, shelter) and finding safety.

So, most of what we offer as high minded thinking about wealth equality means nothing to those that have nothing. The 1% I speak of must find solutions to the huge wealth and opportunity gap that undeniably exists between the 1% and the 99% born out of policy that distributes both opportunity and when necessary to facilitate that, wealth.

I think there is a middle way to do that while advancing social justice (in its widest application) - not through strictly economic capitalism with its reliance on free markets as a means of doing that (I don't think that works as perfectly as proponents of it, like yourself, it would seem, think it does) and not through democratic socialism that depends on management by the state to do it (we'll all likely agree definitely doesn't work).

There is certainly ways to stimulate a nation's economic growth, encourage entrepreneurship, enterprise and wealth creation but those doing that while ignoring a greater social justice in that endeavor will end up creating the angry, disaffected underclass I've spoken of.

[hack]

Regardless of values and ethics, and we could argue all that forever, in the end this is a cycle and at one point in it the pitchforks come out.

[Dr. Strangelove]

A rising theory on how Trump is going to try and weasel out of the debates...he's already putting it out there that he thinks they will be "rigged" and doesn't like the scheduling. Next he'll complain that Hillary is the one keeping Gary Johnson and Jill Stein from attending and in a show of magnanimous solidarity, Trump will refuse to attend.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/30/media/donald-trump-presidential-debates-schedule/index.html

Trump also claims the NFL sent him a letter complaining that two debates will be on sunday nights. The NFL says that they sent Trump no such letter.

[UMStan White]

"You're drawing a distinction without a difference. That is what lawyers do."

No that's what hack lawyers do.

[Ghengis Jon]

Trump won't skip any debates. If he even hints close to the debate date that he won't show up, you can exect a barrage of 10 second Hillary TV commercials. The Hiltron will face the camera and say "Trump, you're a coward. America doesn't want a coward for President." He'll be there.

[Da Geezer]

Jeff said:

I think there is a middle way to do that while advancing social justice (in its widest application) - not through strictly economic capitalism with its reliance on free markets as a means of doing that (I don't think that works as perfectly as proponents of it, like yourself, it would seem, think it does) and not through democratic socialism that depends on management by the state to do it (we'll all likely agree definitely doesn't work).

What is social justice?

I mean, really think about that question. Social justice always includes redistribution of wealth through the auspices of the state. "Social justice" is merely a safe haven for those who want the state to take from one person and give to another, but are aware that saying that is intellectually lazy. The best treatment I've ever found of social justice is the short Jonah Goldberg video on the matter.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/374596/what-social-justice-jonah-goldberg?target=author&tid=897

It takes about five minutes to watch the video.

[Wild Hoss]

Well, Hoss, again, the facts:

You're drawing a distinction without a difference. That is what lawyers do.

Oh, there's a difference. For example; I have conquered you in this exchange, but I haven't invaded you.

Also...not a lawyer. More blowback from that chronic assumption problem of yours.

[Wild Hoss]

A rising theory on how Trump is going to try and weasel out of the debates...he's already putting it out there that he thinks they will be "rigged" and doesn't like the scheduling. Next he'll complain that Hillary is the one keeping Gary Johnson and Jill Stein from attending and in a show of magnanimous solidarity, Trump will refuse to attend.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/30/media/donald-trump-presidential-debates-schedule/index.html

Trump also claims the NFL sent him a letter complaining that two debates will be on sunday nights. The NFL says that they sent Trump no such letter.

He is so fortunate to be campaigning against Hillary...Obama or Biden would wipe the fool with this fool and his mistaken assumption that there is no such thing as bad publicity. His opponent is so mired in it that his repeated lies, buffoonery and general incompetence is almost consequence-free. Its morbidly fascinating to watch.

[CGVT]

From the FWIW department. The Houston Chronicle endorsed Clinton and destroyed Trump

One of the largest newspapers in all of Texas, which previously endorsed Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney, has now officially endorsed Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

On Friday, the Houston Chronicle made its official endorsement known in an article titled: “These are unsettling times that require a steady hand: That’s not Donald Trump.”

‘Any one of Trump’s less-than-sterling qualities — his erratic temperament, his dodgy business practices, his racism, his Putin-like strongman inclinations and faux-populist demagoguery, his contempt for the rule of law, his ignorance — is enough to be disqualifying. His convention-speech comment, “I alone can fix it,” should make every American shudder. He is, we believe, a danger to the Republic.’

The Chronicle is very clear about how it came to its decision, despite endorsing Mitt Romney in the last election. Normally, they wouldn’t endorse any candidate this early in the race, but they explained their reason for doing so as follows:

‘The Chronicle editorial page does not typically endorse early in an election cycle; we prefer waiting for the campaign to play out and for issues to emerge and be addressed. We make an exception in the 2016 presidential race, because the choice between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump is not merely political. It is something much more basic than party preference.’

‘An election between the Democrat Clinton and, let’s say, the Republican Jeb Bush or John Kasich or Marco Rubio, even the hyper-ideological Ted Cruz, would spark a much-needed debate about the role of government and the nation’s future, about each candidate’s experience and abilities. To choose the candidate who defeated them — fairly and decisively, we should point out — is to repudiate the most basic notions of competence and capability.’

The Houston Chronicle clearly recognizes the fact that the Republican presidential nominee has sent the Republican party into turmoil. Many Republicans have purposely distanced themselves from Donald Trump, and there will undoubtedly be more Republicans giving a wide berth to the GOP candidate before the November election is upon us. Being that Texas is considered a “red” state, it is safe to assume that this election is about a lot more than respective parties.