Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[CGVT]

I don't have a Facebook account, it would be too much.

Ha! At times it is, but for me, it is a good way to keep up with family that is scattered all over the US.

[Wild Hoss]

I don't Facebook, either.

[AlabamAlum]

Haha. Yes. Although, I tried it. I don't get its appeal:

Jenni joined the John Burch Society Group.

Delores poked you.

Sally threw a snowball at you.

John beat his high score in Dragon Game.

Throw in bad memes and hottakes, pics of kids you don't know, and photos of people you don't like.

[hack]

I know it's going to all end in tears, but for now it's a great and very efficient way to keep in touch with people socially and professionally. Always easier to call on your network when you've liked a picture of their kids (or their dinner) and wished them a happy birthday. Sometimes you even actually want to see a picture of those kids or those people. Can't hurt one's mindset to look at a few pictures of babies and puppies every morning. Also very good for meaningful events. Facebook a fantastic place to be when David Bowie died.

[Da Geezer]

Hack:

I'm not sure what you mean by breaking down federalism. Or transnational progressivism.

Here is the link to the article: http://www.hudson.org/research/12872...sm-goes-global. It was reprinted in NR, but you have to have a subscription to read it there.

The part I had never thought about goes something like this: 100 years ago Woodrow Wilson became the first Progressive President. Progressivism is/was about placing "highly trained" experts, called "civil servants", in the executive branch of government at all levels. By controlling the education of these "experts", one could effectively control government.

But the states didn't cooperate. So the progressives (nationally) determined to pass "national" laws to appeal to a "national" constituency. This was ruled unconstitutional at first. But the Depression changed public opinion. Eventually, The SC found a way around the 10th Amendment in the Commerce Clause or the 14th Amendment. This answers the question, "Why does the SC have to apply progressive legislation to the whole country?" (think Roe v Wade or activities of the EPA). It is necessary to limit individual states' laws because those laws might prove to be far better than the progressive agenda. This is where the "states as a laboratory of democracy" and "states-rights" enter the discussion. If you are an expert in administering laws, you can't have fools running around following the will of the voters, because the voters know little about enlightened governance. Plus, in this view, competition among the states eventually hurts most states.

Likewise, The UN now advises individual nation states to keep taxes high(er). This is to benefit not just a particular state, but all states, and to protect them from the predation of multinationals. Again, competition among nation states eventually hurts most nation states.

So, the argument goes, Progressivism today is about breaking down barriers between nation-states. The goal is to duplicate the overwhelming success that Progressives in the US and Europe have already achieved. Both Trump and Hillary hold this view: bigger is better.

[hack]

Thank you. Let me read that and get back to you. for now, you have anything on the UN advising states to boost taxes? Would be highly interested in adding that to my little file of IMF/World Bank tidbits on that.

[edindetroit]

My God man, haven't we learned enough about messing with the timeline from Robert Zemekis?

We don't have time to talk about the timeline.

[entropy]

Ha! At times it is, but for me, it is a good way to keep up with family that is scattered all over the US.

agree. That and close friends was the reason to join. It's the only reason to stay.

[WingsFan]

Saved you some time on this one...

Ha, thanks I was just about to research that!

Truth is I used to go to FB for all the above reasons. Now its just for my news feed maybe 10-15 minutes - all sports, no politics or gossip sites.

[Da Geezer]

Thank you. Let me read that and get back to you. for now, you have anything on the UN advising states to boost taxes? Would be highly interested in adding that to my little file of IMF/World Bank tidbits on that.

Not really. I get most of my information from you! I'll check at Acton. Their movie, Poverty Inc, was about the unexpected consequences of aid to third-world countries. That's not far from the unintended consequences of tax breaks to multinationals.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[Dr. Strangelove]

I flipped over to Fox Business for no particular reason and caught 3 minutes of the Lou Dobbs show. The guy might be even more deranged with Trump-love than Hannity. He was screaming at poor old Fred Barnes (of the Weekly Standard) for not supporting Trump whole-heartedly and called Paul Ryan a despicable traitor who "should not be tolerated"...whatever the hell that's supposed to mean.

[hack]

I get most of my information from you!

NOW do you see why you are so frequently wrong about stuff?

[Da Geezer]

yup, that explains it.

[entropy]

That is well done..


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk