Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - kidcoyote

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 246
1
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: Yesterday at 10:44 PM »
WTF is going on? Students required to submit sexual history.

http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=5923

2
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: Yesterday at 05:28 PM »
And for the third time I've mentioned it, the NFL is saying that this is new evidence and deserves to increase his suspension. That's what the NFL is saying. It's clear you disagree, which is fine. I don't think it's cut and dry though.

Yes, but new evidence of what?   What does the video show that we do not already know?  He was suspended for punching his girlfriend.  The video showed him punching his girlfriend.  How does the video change anything?

...and that is without getting into the fact that there is evidence that the NFL already had the video when they initially suspended him.

The additional suspension came from the public outcry when the public saw the video.  But, how can you increase a guy's suspension without adding to his initial offense?  If they somehow find an audio tape of her screaming when Ray hits her, is the NFL justified in tacking on another 4 game suspension? 

New evidence, but no new offense.  How can they increase the penatly?

The part I don't get -- and I hope this isn't taken the wrong way -- is that the NFL has deemed a first time offense worth 6 games.  As far as the Rice incident goes -- and this is the part I hope isn't taken the wrong way -- that's pretty mild by domestic violence standards.  Sure he knocked her out with one punch -- and that's a horrible thing.  But compare that to the freshman RB at Oklahoma who broke a young lady's face in 4 places -- and he's still in school (though suspended from the team).  Unfortunately, broken bones and hospital visits is a common thing with domestic violence.  6 games?  You can tell by that the NFL wants these guys back on the field.  I think a year off with a bunch of community service is a better punishment.  But that will be tough to enforce if the victims keep defending the accused.  Ray Rice got punished because of the video plain and simple.  There was proof without needing witness.  Without that video?  He's still a Raven and has played two games -- and we aren't talking about the NFL problem.

Seems to me this is much better left to 1. the team and 2. the courts. If I'm an owner, and I have a clause in my contract about behavior, not necessarily illegal, but something like this, or drug use, anything, and the player signs it with legal advice, and I can cut him, so be it. After that, it seems like it's a court issue. Sure the league has an image to protect, but it shouldn't be extra legal. Now, in a panic, the league has hired 4-5 women to help on policy. This may be a mistake, but hopefully not. But what happens now if it's a he said/she said, and maybe a divorce involved? Is that a court issue, or a league issue?

I think Goodell has to go. In trying to save his own skin, he's panicking.

3
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 16, 2014, 11:15 AM »
Goodell does not have absolute free reigns when it comes to personel issues.

According to? Goodell has the all controlling blanket of "actions undertaken for the best interests of football" in their CBA, as all commissioners do. Which gives him free reign to do things, like player suspensions.

Things like admissibility of evidence and double jeopardy don't apply to the NFL, they apply to courts and public entities.

As Kid pointed out, there are certain legal lines Goodell cannot cross, even as commissioner.

This is a business with a union, therefore there are certain legal areas where Goodell me run up against Fair Labor laws.  Unfair decisions on labor issues can be taken to mediation.

Just seems like a modern day lynching. I mean, OJ got a trial, for goodness sakes. I'm not sure why the black community isn't involved here. White men passing judgment on black men without trial? Sounds like Jim Crow if you ask me. Goodell is in some spot. He's got NOW breathing down his neck. Does feminism trump racism? If Goodell starts to get heat from the black community, what does he do, yield to them, or yield to feminists? If Rice hit and knocked out a man, would it be different? Do women get "extra rights"? Do they trump minority rights? Do they trump individual rights? Some juicy questions on this one.

This is why I hate group rights. People are people. Assault is assault. It shouldn't matter who the victim is, nor who the assaulter is, straight, gay, black, white, woman, man. The problem is, the left wants group rights, not individual rights. Kind of twists things into pretzels. You reap what you sow.

4
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 15, 2014, 11:26 PM »
Suspension is one thing, but indefinite? Goodell  may be running up against employment law. Forget the union, not sure why the NAACP isn't all over this. I understand NOW is pressuring the NFL, but I'd like to see the NAACP involved. Where's Al Sharpton when you need him? Isn't the black unemployment rate high enough? IMO, this should go through the legal system, and the team has to abide by the contract. If this allows them an out, so be it. But to make him unemployable in the only profession in which he can make this kind of money seems illegal, NFL or not. IMO, the proper stance was to stay out of it, and let the courts handle it. If his fiance/wife doesn't press charges, what case is there?

Well, first addressing this last point, the fiance/wife often drop statements to police and the problem with DV cases is they turn into the attacker vs the police officer. Which prosecutors don't necessarily feel as comfortable about prosecuting, which is a damn shame imo. I wish and hope that more of these abusers will be in jail.

Is this an NAACP issue? I guess it could be but this isn't so obviously white vs black discrimination, at least to me anyway, maybe you feel differently.

I'm not sure what they'd be implicating here from an employment law standpoint but I'm not overly familiar with the area. My understanding is NFL players are employees at will, essentially at the will of their employers, but that claim would be against the Ravens, not the NFL, since the Ravens ultimately cut him.

It does appear the NFL is prepared to say that this is new evidence and will say that, I'm not sure how it can be regarded as such, nor am I sure as to why they aren't pursuing it under the best interests of football but I'm sure their counsel has more resources and knowledge of what's going on than I do.

I have no problem with the team cutting him. They must have clauses in their contracts. The problem I have is the league denying him the ability to offer his services to other teams. They may not want to hire him, and that's fine. But a league ban? Without this going through the legal system, seems outrageous. At will employee? How can that be, as they have a contract? I see it as discriminatory as he's been denied his rights. He happens to be black. There's a video, and it doesn't look good for him, but OJ Simpson got off, for goodness sakes, and he murdered two people. Whether he's white or black of course wouldn't matter. But he's black, and he's been discriminated against. How can you take a man's livelihood away without due process?

I am sure there are legal penalties for what he's done. Maybe jail. I don't know. But a NYC teacher wouldn't be fired for this. Before trial? NFW. The league should have stayed out of it, let the team cut him per their contract, and let the legal system run its course. Regarding him being black, how many white players have been banned from playing like this? And what about Ray Lewis? He drove the getaway car in a murder. But the legal system didn't convict, why should the league? They acted properly in that case. Not this one.

5
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 15, 2014, 05:28 PM »
Goodell does not have absolute free reigns when it comes to personel issues.

According to? Goodell has the all controlling blanket of "actions undertaken for the best interests of football" in their CBA, as all commissioners do. Which gives him free reign to do things, like player suspensions.

Things like admissibility of evidence and double jeopardy don't apply to the NFL, they apply to courts and public entities.

Suspension is one thing, but indefinite? Goodell  may be running up against employment law. Forget the union, not sure why the NAACP isn't all over this. I understand NOW is pressuring the NFL, but I'd like to see the NAACP involved. Where's Al Sharpton when you need him? Isn't the black unemployment rate high enough? IMO, this should go through the legal system, and the team has to abide by the contract. If this allows them an out, so be it. But to make him unemployable in the only profession in which he can make this kind of money seems illegal, NFL or not. IMO, the proper stance was to stay out of it, and let the courts handle it. If his fiance/wife doesn't press charges, what case is there?

6
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 15, 2014, 05:22 PM »
Vanishing Evidence for Climate Change

Here's what climate change is really about. And people think ExxonMobil makes money? Not this easily. At least they produce  products consumers willingly buy, and not coerced to buy. More spending on this than wheat. What a gravy train, and disgrace.

The costs of feeding the climate-change “monster” are staggering. According to the Congressional Research Service, from 2001 to 2014 the US government spent $131 billion on projects meant to combat human-caused climate change, plus $176 billion for breaks for anti-CO2 energy initiatives.
 
Federal anti-climate-change spending is now running at $11 billion a year, plus tax breaks of $20 billion a year. That adds up to more than double the $14.4 billion worth of wheat produced in the United States in 2013

7
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 15, 2014, 03:42 PM »
I thought this was a good insight into the mind of conservative thinkers (as opposed to mindless partisans - that I understand!)

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/10/why-its-harder-to-think-like-a-conservative

And this is a rational case for open borders:

http://www.vox.com/2014/9/13/6135905/open-borders-bryan-caplan-interview-gdp-double


Amazed you can understand that writer in the Guardian, when it's really much more simple. Firstly, I suppose he's speaking of the British Conservative Party. But for me, a classical liberal(not the new type) I believe in freedom, not hanging on to anything, but allowing the free market to work its magic. That writer believes in coercion, forcing people to act in certain ways, to his way of what's right and wrong. You certainly should have no difficulty of understanding that.

On the open borders, Milton Friedman nails it, "you can't have open borders and a welfare state".  They're incompatible. Open borders is fine, if you eliminate the welfare state. If people come here to work, fine. In Canada, they're required to invest $600,000 to become citizens. If Caplan wants to eliminate newcomers getting on the public dole, I'm all for it. But that's not the Dem case. They want votes, they want dependence. There are 46,000,000 people on foodstamps already. You'd have half the world come here to get free food, healthcare, housing, and run from violence. Can't have it. No welfare state? Open the borders.

8
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 15, 2014, 03:25 PM »
Perhaps a better way to approach this is to work on curbing violence as a whole, not just domestic violence. Would we be as upset if the video showed him knocking out another man? Shouldn't we be?

One thing that I would like clarified is about the ownership, distribution of the video. I'm assuming that the casino either gave it to the police willingly or under court order. Does anyone know if Rice's rights were infringed upon when the police turned it over to the NFL?


For anyone who's spent time at casinos, it's often not a happy affair. Can't imagine going with my wife. At least for me, when playing poker, I need to concentrate. But it's quite boring for anyone who's is with you, unless they're gambling. I imagine the elevator ride conversation went something like this.

Q:Hey, honey, how much you got left of that $10 grand I gave you?
A: Nothin. But don't you get on me. You lost more. And if we're staying, I want more.
Then it gets nasty.

Not a pleasant place for couples. Sure, seniors spend their SS checks there, but that's at slots, manageable.

Condi to the rescue?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/11096086/Backing-for-Condoleezza-Rice-to-take-over-scandal-hit-NFL.html

9
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 13, 2014, 02:45 PM »
Here's a good article from the Weather Channel....

Get Ready, Florida: 3,200 Days Have Passed Without A Hurricane, But That Streak Will End ... Eventually

Quote from: Get Ready, Florida: 3,200 Days Have Passed Without A Hurricane, But That Streak Will End ... Eventually
Heading in to the heart of the 2014 Atlantic hurricane season, it is interesting to note that it has been 8 years, 9 months and 1 week, or 3,200 days, since a hurricane has made landfall in Florida.

This is the longest stretch of consecutive years since 1851 that no hurricanes have hit the state. The longest hurricane-free streak prior to this one was five consecutive seasons from 1980 to 1984.



Twisters near 20 year lows as well, and 80% of twisters(tornadoes) occur in the US. It's due to climate change. When there are more storms, events, it's climate change, and when there are less, it's climate change. When it's hotter or colder than normal, that's also due to climate change. Ebola=climate change(people are arguing that) and the recent turmoil in the Mideast as well(people are also arguing that-I can produce the articles), and now we get 52 reasons why it's not getting warmer.

It's not about climate change, it's about money changing hands. The US government alone spends $22 billion per year on climate change initiatives. This has become an industry, on life support aka taxpayer money. The science stinks. The models are horrendously wrong. All we get our excuses as to why they're wrong.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/09/12/there-are-now-52-explanations-for-the-pause-in-global-warming/

10
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 13, 2014, 02:32 PM »
This could be in the Jerry Sandusky thread also (note psuicer7's post in the comments section).

The NFL, Ray Rice and 'justice' in the court of public opinion


In case anyone is wondering who the guy is, he's a producer who's done a lot of TV work for the four major sports leagues.  His name is Ben Bourma, a former Icer.  Here's an interview with him following the opening of the Pegula Ice Arena.

Penn State Hockey: Ben Bouma Interview


So, let's get this right. State College has banned fracking, but they haven't banned fracking money from building the arena. That about right? At least it's good no one is using natural gas in the area and is willing to pay 2X the price for unfracked(and imported) oil to heat their homes/businesses/arena/university/dorms. ;)


11
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 12, 2014, 04:43 PM »
Don't know if many(or any) are following the new College Board AP History guidelines they are trying to install nationally in high schools, but here's a letter to the Texas BOE to resist. One example of the new curriculum frequently noted is taking the side of Santa Ana and Mexico in justifying the attack at The Alamo. There are many more.

http://www.nas.org/articles/open_letter_to_the_texas_board_of_education_urging_action_against_the_colle

12
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 11, 2014, 11:52 PM »
Awhile ago, Lar accused me of labeling all liberals socialist/Marxists/Communists. But the Piketty book was the rage among liberals, and in one of the posts here(of about 10 on the book) quoted him as saying, "Marx didn't go far enough". So, if someone is promoting a book, which believes Marxism isn't 'enough', aren't they to the left of Marxism, a sort of uber-Marxism? What is confiscating wealth(not income) but the most extreme of all economic ideas.

Well, now we see the same from the climate change crowd. Here's a preview of Naomi Klein's new book. I read a paper by her, and let's just say she's got nothing on Sean Penn. And Bill McKibben, oy. Once Bill McKibben mentioned a natural gas terminal for export being built somewhere on the East Coast, and he blurted, "At $700 million, this is going to cost more than the Ravens new stadium!" You get it? Me neither. Psst to Bill. This is how capitalism works. You invest sums of money and risk it(not taxpayers) and you do so in expectation of return on that money, with no guarantee. In the process, in something this big, you create thousands of jobs. Re the stadium, it was probably financed publicly, on the back of taxpayers. These two, Klein and McKibben are economic illiterates. And scientific ones as well. McKibben is at Middlebury, and is not a scientist.

Yes, we knew it all along. Climate change is not about climate change. Never has been. It's about $$$$$, and control. They state it themselves.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/09/full-frontal-environmentalism-we-knew-it-all-along.php

13
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 11, 2014, 11:30 PM »

I agree this will be a speed bump for the NFL.  I just think it could and probably will get uncomfortable enough for the owners, that they will ditch Goodell.  They need a strong leader.  There are real issues out there, like the covering up of brain injuries that are costing them money.  Add in the PR nightmare of the Redskins and now the owner of the most valuable team being accused of sexual assault.  And then there are a bunch or unpunished/under-punished domestic abusers playing in games that are starting to draw the mob's attention.  They are going to want someone without the baggage.

I wouldn't put the Redskins in with the other. Firstly, it's a tempest in a teapot. Something like 65% of those polled want the name unchanged. I just don't think fans see or feel it as derogatory. And it is private property, does have a value, and should it ever reach the Supreme Court, the team would win. But along similar lines, "The Fighting Sioux" of U. of North Dakota  was forced to change their name, despite the Sioux Indians wanting it kept. So, who's really against these names, those groups supposedly affected, or PC types trying to regulate the world, borne of white guilt? Several years ago, Dartmouth wouldn't play UND in hockey due to the name, cancelling a scheduled game. Dartmouth should get their own house in order. It's a well documented mess. But when I think of "The Fighting Sioux", it represents a tribe which defeated Custer at Little Big Horn, a brave and fierce tribe. On the other hand, "The Fighting Irish" of ND can be seen as drunkards, or at least people with short tempers, resorting to fisticuffs to settle disputes. Kind of racist view of the Irish, don't you think? So, why is that name allowed? Seems like no one has a problem with the Notre Dame name or logo. Ah, they're white and Catholic, so no one cares about them anyway. They're privileged in other ways, so they don't matter.

You aren't completely right about the Sioux. Two tribes were asked to vote. One voted the allow the name. The other tribe said no. So the name is gone.

My bad. But there are 40 million Irish Americans. I wonder how many like that Leprechaun logo with his fists ready to fight. Kind of stereotyping the Irish, no?

14
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 11, 2014, 04:49 PM »

I agree this will be a speed bump for the NFL.  I just think it could and probably will get uncomfortable enough for the owners, that they will ditch Goodell.  They need a strong leader.  There are real issues out there, like the covering up of brain injuries that are costing them money.  Add in the PR nightmare of the Redskins and now the owner of the most valuable team being accused of sexual assault.  And then there are a bunch or unpunished/under-punished domestic abusers playing in games that are starting to draw the mob's attention.  They are going to want someone without the baggage.

I wouldn't put the Redskins in with the other. Firstly, it's a tempest in a teapot. Something like 65% of those polled want the name unchanged. I just don't think fans see or feel it as derogatory. And it is private property, does have a value, and should it ever reach the Supreme Court, the team would win. But along similar lines, "The Fighting Sioux" of U. of North Dakota  was forced to change their name, despite the Sioux Indians wanting it kept. So, who's really against these names, those groups supposedly affected, or PC types trying to regulate the world, borne of white guilt? Several years ago, Dartmouth wouldn't play UND in hockey due to the name, cancelling a scheduled game. Dartmouth should get their own house in order. It's a well documented mess. But when I think of "The Fighting Sioux", it represents a tribe which defeated Custer at Little Big Horn, a brave and fierce tribe. On the other hand, "The Fighting Irish" of ND can be seen as drunkards, or at least people with short tempers, resorting to fisticuffs to settle disputes. Kind of racist view of the Irish, don't you think? So, why is that name allowed? Seems like no one has a problem with the Notre Dame name or logo. Ah, they're white and Catholic, so no one cares about them anyway. They're privileged in other ways, so they don't matter.

16
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 11, 2014, 12:13 PM »
This is eerily similar to the Penn State situation....

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/ravens/ravens-insider/bal-ravens-executives-address-ray-rice-investigation-in-exclusive-interview-20140910,0,4599781,full.story



I thought the same thing at first.  But the more I think about it, the more I think the NFL doesn't have to do anything.  People love they NFL and will continue to love the NFL no matter what comes out.  And media people need the NFL because it's the number one thing to talk about for about 10 months of the year.  So eventually this pretty much goes away regardless of what happens to Goodell, etc.


I agree re the NFL staying out of it. This is a legal matter, best left to law enforcement. Of course, the team can disassociate themselves from him, as I'm sure it's in his contract. But do cops, teachers, sanitation workers lose their jobs on one instance of domestic violence? Teddy Kennedy killed a woman, for goodness sakes, and while it was an accident, he was drunk. Didn't seem to be much Senate concern. And Bill Clinton?

In this Ray Rice matter, I'd like to see some support for him from the black community. I mean, they supported Michael Brown in Ferguson based on nothing more than race, despite many witnesses saying he was the attacker. Ray Rice has legal rights which have been trampled on. Ray Rice needs a good lawyer to go against the NFL.

17
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 10, 2014, 09:57 PM »
Goodell: $44 million in NFL earnings last year (April to March).


I heard it was $35 million, but what's the difference? Baseball too. Selig was making $15-20 million per year. Now wonder he sold the Brewers. NBA too. Stern is loaded after his gig. They're paying these guys like they invented the sport. Couldn't the NFL get a commish for the paltry salary of $7-8 million? Condi Rice wants the job, and she'd accept that salary.

18
OT / Re: OT: Movie Thread
« on: September 10, 2014, 02:14 PM »
Spiral, a French TV series(Engrenages) in its 4th year, is quite good. 8.4 on imdb. The King's Speech got 8.2. Not sure it's that good, but it's good. I just finished season 2. Violent, political corruption and payoffs. Interesting how the French system works. Lots of protection for insiders.

My son watching Luther, with Idris Elba, who starred in The Wire. imdb gives 8.6, a British production. That's up next. Forbrydelsen still my #1 of foreign series.

19
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 10, 2014, 02:07 PM »

20
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: September 10, 2014, 12:41 AM »
I can't bring myself to watch the Ray Rice video but the descriptions are pretty damning. I think I'm with Jones. Forget all the nuances, I just don't want to work with or employ this guy.

http://www.pennlive.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/09/would_you_want_ray_rice_workin.html


Reports are that Baltimore has terminated his contract. 


And the NFL has suspended him indefinitely.

I'm not sure exactly how I feel about this.  On the one hand, the guy deserves some severe punishment.  But his wife is the victim, and now she suffers financially too.

Here's a view that seems sympathetic with yours. The Ray Lewis comparison does make this seem hypocritical.

An Opinion on Ray Rice

21
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: August 30, 2014, 08:55 AM »
Advice for Lar

http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/54613/just_don_t_look/


Good strategy. Don't look at the devastating  effect of policies. Make believe you care despite results.

Liberalism vs. Blacks

22
OT / Re: OT: Movie Thread
« on: August 28, 2014, 02:55 PM »
Saw another Korean film, "The Man From Nowhere". The violence notwithstanding, the film is good. Pawn broker turns vigilante to save young girl, a neighbor. Turns out he's an ex-military guy, with all sorts of martial arts training. Over the top violent fight scenes. Like Oldboy. It's the genre, almost mandatory. Better than most. Korean films stepped up a bit the last few years and getting noticed. Everything better in terms of music, editing, panoramic shots, etc. Growing up, more sophisticated. Next up, The Election and Triad Election(a sequel). There's 3 or 4 hot directors.

23
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: August 28, 2014, 11:17 AM »
Although I was aware of corporate inversions, I didn't fully appreciate the common sense of doing it. It's far more advantageous to relocate outside the US. I see a stampede coming. Here's why: If a US company, like Burger King, makes $100 million overseas, they pay taxes there. If they want to take the after tax profits back to the US to invest here, they have to pay taxes again, on the money, not future earnings. We are the only country in the world who taxes these repatriated profits. It's stupid. But there's a way to avoid the US taxes and still get the money back into the US. Relocate to Canada, become a Canadian corporation. Under same scenario, BK makes $100 million overseas, pays taxes, brings the money back to Canada, pays no taxes, then as a Canadian corp invests in the US, and pays no taxes on the invested monies. CEO's who don't consider this should be fired. I can't see how this possibly can be stopped. You can't tax foreign corporations from investing in the US. That'd be suicide. No country does that. They all tax the earnings, not the investment. Only the US taxes the investment, but only on repatriated profits of its own companies, not foreign corps. Simple solution: don't be a US corporation. Be a foreign one. Save billions.

Does anyone have the other side of this argument as to what should/can be done? My solution: lower taxes and don't ever tax repatriated profits as they create jobs.
Warren Buffett's Tax Whopper

24
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: August 28, 2014, 08:13 AM »

This guy just doesn't understand capitalism, and why should he?


His understanding of capitalism is at least as strong as yours of liberalism, yet that never stops you from flapping your trap.

Really? Why don't you tell me how liberalism/socialism works. And please provide examples of success. At least I have an econ degree, not a music degree. I'm talking about economics and economic systems. Liberalism is anti-economic. It's parasitic in nature, weighing down economies with costs. It provides no growth and weakens entire systems, and bureaucrats take their 20% vig running it. The only reason socialism exists at all is because capitalist and free market economies can bear the burden, at least for awhile. But as you see in places like Argentina and Venezuela, they're on the road to being like Cuba, Soviet Union or Communist China. It always ends this way. And in places like Spain and Portugal, you have 50% youth unemployment from following socialist policies, so they're just behind in collapse, and will certainly need to change course. Youths are leaving those countries and going to former colonies in Africa to find work. As usual, you speak on a subject with scant knowledge.

You equate any liberal leanings to socialist regimes.  Following the same logic path, I should equate your right wing leanings to Fascist regimes.  It makes just as much sense.

Fascist regimes other than Franco were lefist regimes.


Debatable but if calling your right wing leanings Francoist floats your boat, so be it.

The point is that all liberals aren't communists, socialists, or whatever other far out label you want to attach to them.  But that's something that you refuse to acknowledge.   So from now on whenever you go on one of these weird socialism rants, I'll just call you a Francophile.
Franco floats my boat? You're nuts. If all liberals aren't socialists, and I imagine they don't want to be identified that way, how does one explain the infatuation of Piketty by the left? Piketty himself says he's not a socialist but then in the next sentence says we should tax wealth at 10% and Marx didn't go far enough. So, it matters little how he calls himself. It's his policy ideas which make him what he is. And Krugman is a cheeleader of his. Seems to me, the left is either disingenuous ir confused. Walter Duranty of the NY Times was an apologist of Stalin, Galbraith of Harvard was similar to the Sovief Union and Mao. Obama's former WH coounications director said Mao was one of her two favorite philosophers; Valerie Jarrett's father in law was a registered communist.

But you're missing the bigger point. Most of these ideas start with good intentions, but as Sowell states, often don't work, but the left, stuck in ideology, despite the facts, just plow on. Eventually, this leads to coercion. Do you believe in Piketty's wealth tax? If so, how will this be accomplished without coercion? So , if you want to be known as liberal, be liberal in the strictest sense, and stop the coercion. Coercion is what totalitarian regimes do, not what the US should do. Piketty is advocating coercion.

25
OT / Re: OT's GONE WILD!
« on: August 28, 2014, 07:52 AM »
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/aug/26/global-warming-irreversible-un-panel-report


The Guardian quoting the UN, with a photo including IPCC head, Pachiuri, a railroad engineer. If it's irreversible, why do anyfhing? Hanses started this scaremongering back in 1988. When is armagaeddon  coming now? I'd like to prepare.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 246