Ponderable

Well of course you couldn't use the bullshit claims associated with that subject of the topic that Snopes blew up, but you certainly used the sound bite of Executive orders, even though it's been proven BO has not made use of them anymore then any other President before him.

That's the problem with right wing chumps, they bite onto a sound bite and refuse to let it go, no matter how much reality is put in there face.

Just as you started the former "Something to Ponder" thread with a bullshit Alinsky quote, and got dismantled by Snopes. No wonder you hate Snopes, it keeps exposing your bullshit.

You don't evolve Lion, you just hold onto what "feels" best for you. Fortunately, as the Trump campaign has shown, you have a lot of company.

You obviously don't care to or are incapable of discussing anything in an adult way.
You prefer to cast aspersions & categorize folks who have a different view than yourself.
You have shown what a condescending, judgmental, pompous ugly ass punk you are.

With the restart of the website, you have doubled down in your stupidity and inability to be civilized...

By the way the executive order I was referring to was turned over by the court, the court ruled that just because Barry didn't agree with a law he could not circumvent the law through EXECUTIVE ORDER.
You got that CHUMP?
 
… is from page 67 of Joel Mokyr’s forthcoming (October 2016) volume from Princeton University Press, A Culture of Growth: The Origins of the Modern Economy (footnote deleted; link added):

Max Planck famously noted (with some exaggeration) that a new scientific insight never triumphs by convincing its opponents, but only because these opponents eventually die off. Within technology there was and still is considerable resistance to inventors coming from vested interests, known (somewhat unfairly) as Luddism. Deirdre McCloskey (2016a, p. 94) points out that such words as “innovation” and “novelty” in the past often had negative connotations. An emotional attachment to traditional ways of doing things made novelty look suspect.

It is more than passing strange that the opponents of new patterns of trade and of new methods of production, financing, and distribution – it is remarkably odd that those who are expressly afraid of, pessimistic about, and (hence) hostile to an economic future made open-ended by entrepreneurial creativity and market competition – include not only people who self-identify as “conservative” but also many people who self-identify as “Progressive.” The only “progress” such “Progressives” really want is the progressively more expansive and harsh use of force to prevent individuals from acting in ways that “Progressives” do not understand and fear.
 
One Weird Trick That Will Sell Your Tax Increase to the Public

July 22, 2016, 10:09 am

Here is the trick: You want a tax increase for X. The public is never going to approve of raising taxes for X. So you bundle 95% X with 5% Y, Y being something the public is really excited about. As much as possible, you never mention X in any discussion of the tax increase, despite most of the funds being dedicated to X, and instead focus solely on Y. If history is any guide, you will get your tax increase.

What a specific example? You want a tax increase to fund a huge public transit boondoggle. The public is not buying it. So you rebrand the public transit project as a "transportation bill", you throw in a few highway improvements, you talk mainly about the highway improvements, and you get your public transit bill.

Another example is general revenue increases. Most of these tax increases go to increasing the salary and pensions of bureaucrats and senior administrators that aren't really doing anything the public wants done in the first place. So you say the tax increase is to improve the pay of three (and only these three) categories of workers: police, firefighters, and teachers. The public likes what these folks do, and could mostly care less about what anyone else in local government does. So even if the taxes help about just 3 teachers among 3000 other bureaucrats, you sell it as a teacher salary increase.

It is because I understand this one weird trick that this sort of story does not surprise me in the least:

'Yikes!': Some Arizona teachers see little from Prop. 123

For months leading up to the vote on Proposition 123, supporters of the public education funding measure pleaded for its passage, saying it represented money for teachers.

But as the first installment of cash has gone out, many teachers may find Prop. 123 is a smaller windfall than they hoped. And voters may be surprised to learn where some of the money is going.

In some cases, teachers will collect less than 20 percent of their district's Prop. 123 funds. Some districts will use most of their money for other purposes, ranging from textbooks to computers to school buses, according to an Arizona Republicsurvey of district spending plans.

The measure was sold as a way to direct money — significant money — to teachers and classrooms....

With no rules on how the money can be used, each school district has tried to address its own priorities. While many supporters of the measure invoked teachers as the main reason to vote for Prop. 123, others in the public school systems have staked a claim to the money, especially after many went years without raises beginning in the recession.

Those seeing raises include relatively low-paid secretaries, custodians and bus drivers. But it also includes superintendents, principals and mid-level administrators who don’t work in classrooms.

That may not sit well with voters who opposed the measure or with supporters who thought they were doing something more substantive for teachers.
 
The Problem Is That We Should Not Care About "Democracy", We Should Care About Protection of Individual Rights

July 19, 2016, 10:26 am

Perhaps this is yet another negative legacy of Woodrow Wilson and his "Making the world safe for democracy" meme. We talk all the time about allying with and siding with and protecting democracies, but all "democracy" really means in practice (at least today) is that the country has some sort of nominal election process. Elections are fine, they are less bad than most other ways of selecting government officials, but what we really should care about is that a country protects individuals rights, has free markets, and a rule of law. If a county has those things, I am not sure I care particularly if they vote or pick leaders by randomly selecting folks from the phone book.

You can see this problem at work here, in an essay by Ilya Somin:

Most democratic governments – including the United States – condemned the attempted recent military coup against Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, and welcomed its failure, citing the need to respect Turkey’s “democratic” institutions. But in the aftermath, Erdogan took the opportunity to persecute his political opponents on a large scale, including firing thousands of judges who might constrain his authoritarian tendencies. Erdogan’s government was also severely undermining civil liberties long before the coup, even going so far as to pass a law criminalizing “insults” to the president, under which hundreds of people have been prosecuted. Erdogan’s own commitment to democracy is questionable, at best. He famously once called democracy a tram that “you ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.”

This raises the question of whether the coup attempt against Erdogan might have been justified. More generally, is it ever justified to forcibly overthrow a democratic government? In this 2013 post, written after the successful military coup against Egypt’s radical Islamist government, I argued that the answer is sometimes “yes.” There should be a strong presumption against forcibly removing a democratic regime. But that presumption might be overcome if the government in question poses a grave threat to human rights, or is likely to destroy democracy itself by shutting down future political competition.

While we can argue if Erdogan is "committed" to democracy, I think it is pretty clear that he is not committed to the protection of individual rights.

What we need is a new alliance not to protect the world for democracy -- that word may originally have meant what I want it to mean but now it seems possible to just check the democracy box merely by having some kind of voting. We need a new (much smaller than the UN) alliance to make the world safe for, what? We need a name. What do we call a country with strong protections of individual rights, free markets, and the rule of law?
 
Republican Administrations Are Just As Incompetent as Democratic Administrations: Governor Doug Ducey in AZ

July 18, 2016, 1:00 pm

Strong supporters of both political parties maintain a delusion that all government problems are the result of the incompetence of the other political team, rather than the inherent incentive and information problems facing all government efforts.

Republicans, for example, made fun of Obama's competence with the horrendously bad rollout of the Federal Obamacare exchange. But now, Doug Ducey's Arizona Department of Revenue is having the same problem.

As of this month, the agency is requiring that all multisite businesses (like mine) must file online rather than with pen and paper. So we logged in today to file our report. What a disaster! The only thing I can even compare it to is stories of the early days of the Obamacare exchange. First, the site is set up so that even a relatively simple return must have data entered across scores of pages. In basic layout, it is probably the worst site of any of the ten states we do business in.

But what has really made today a nightmare is that it is taking 5-10 minutes to load each page. The agency clearly was not ready for the load. Combined with a site design that requires many many page loads to complete simple tasks, and it makes filing (a 10 minute or so job on paper) a multi-day nightmare. Four hours into it and I have not completed one location out of 15 or so I need to enter.

When I called the DOR, they basically said I had to suck it up. I begged them for some sort of simple accommodation -- I have filed by paper for 13 years, why not allow me to file by paper for one more month until they get their act together? No dice. They instead suggested that my accounting staff come in at midnight tonight to do the work when the load on their servers would be lower.

If anything, the response from Republican Doug Ducey's office was even more insulting. They said to me that this change had been announced for months, as if it was my failing to enter the system in a timely manner that was the problem. According to Ducey's staff, I could have avoided the whole problem by filing my June revenue numbers a few months back, lol. I patiently explained that June numbers could not be reported until the bank statements had arrived and were reconciled, such that most all returns had to be filed between the 15th and the 20th of the month. And what is more, if this had been in the works so long, why hadn't the Administration seen fit to do an adequate job of testing the site and preparing for adequate capacity?

The answers from the governor's office were just as absurd and arrogant as any coming out of the Obama Administration about the failures of the exchange. Which again proves to this libertarian that there is no much real difference between the Coke and Pepsi parties. The problem is the government -- without the accountability brought by market competition -- trying to do these sorts of things.
 
While fact-checkers are having a field day with Donald Trump’s public statements, they would be wise to update their data on crime.

Most recently, the Pulitzer-prize winning fact-checker Politifact analyzed Trump’s statements on rising crime and found him to be wrong, writing that crime has been falling for decades.

Politifact rated Trump’s June 7, 2016, claim that “crime is rising” to be “Pants on Fire” – their lowest rating.

But there is a big problem with their conclusion: Politifact just stopped looking at data in 2014.
 
Hillary is reportedly worth around 45 million...$$$$
Pondering....... how does one amass that kind of fortune working in the public sector?
 
Obama's brother has said he is voting for Trump. Maybe Bill will too. Do you think Susie is going to send Hillary a Thank You card for this or try to blame this all on Taco Bowl? What a disgusting group of people.
 
Obama's brother has said he is voting for Trump. Maybe Bill will too. Do you think Susie is going to send Hillary a Thank You card for this or try to blame this all on Taco Bowl? What a disgusting group of people.
Obama's half-brother Malik is a Kenyan citizen.
 
Back
Top