Burn-E

Concerned, But Not Wanting To Offend, Canada Quietly Plants Privacy Hedge Along Entire U.S. Border. https://outabouter.com/2017/01/18/concerned-canada-quietly-plants-privacy-hedge-along-entire-u-s-border/ This is brilliant satire

Yes. I'm counting the days until there's a rush of people who suddenly sit up and go WTF, why the hell did I think voting for this guy was a good idea? Voter's remorse. I guarantee there's going to be a cover story on Time magazine discussing how all of his lower middle class brainwashed followers are pissed off because it turns out the narcissist they voted for has completely ignored them and failed to deliver on his promises and they're now bankrupt because their medical bills have obliterated what was left of their meager savings. None of those manufacturing jobs are coming back.

Here's a clear example of how that trail works using the Trump "kompromat" as the material: It [publishing] happened via a series of steps by various actors, each of whom relied on the actions of those before them to justify their own decisions. BuzzFeed presumably published it in part because CNN was reporting on it. CNN was reporting on it because intelligence officials had briefed Trump on it. Intelligence officials briefed Trump on it because senior congressional leaders were passing it around. Senior congressional leaders may have been passing it around in part because Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid alluded to it in a letter blasting FBI Director James Comey for publicizing information harmful to Hillary Clinton but not publicizing the dirt on Trump. Each act lowered the bar for those who followed to act on information that they knew might or might not be true.

Actually, fake news would be better described by the term social scientists use for it: the woozle effect The point is that fake news can be disseminated by any major news source of various types of media. What is critical is evaluating how well the news providers substantiate what they broadcast in order to protect the integrity of their reporting. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woozle_effect The Woozle effect, also known as evidence by citation,[1] or a woozle, occurs when frequent citation of previous publications that lack evidence misleads individuals, groups and the public into thinking or believing there is evidence, and nonfacts become urban mythsand factoids.[2

Thanks Matt, that was it.

Oh no, definitely seeking some additional components / accessories but I have some parts to sell.

Remind me the name of the Facebook group (thought it was FB maybe just a community site?) for selling / buying used bike equipment? There were a couple of sites mentioned before specifically for serious riders.

See that's the funny thing in a democracy we're encouraged to exercise our rights of free speech especially when we see the government is making bad decisions. It's called being an engaged and responsible citizen. And since I've been an equal critic of Clinton (both), W, Obama and Trump I hardly see calling out Trump's ignorant actions as anything but showing concern. I wish I could say I can't wait for the revolt in 2 years when the Trump supporters get pissed because he abandoned them. But this is going to be very bad for the entire country so it's not something I really wish for. The Pottery Barn rule applies just as much to Trump and those who enabled him as it did to previous presidencies. You own this.

Kevin is a troll when it comes to my faith as it is consistently my faith he feels a need to focus on. He doesn't understand it and he feels threatened by those who honestly believe because he feels betrayed by what he used to believe. There is no reasonable discourse with him because he isn't interested in that. He only wants someone to abuse with his own disbelief, doubt, fear and anger. I disagree with many extreme views even Christian and I go to extraordinary lengths to understand other faiths and philosophies so that I can see as they see. Even if I don't agree with them. I'm hardly brainwashed as I recognize my doubts and can speak very openly about them. But I also know my faith and recognize the benefits it provides in the lives of many including my own. Tell me Kevin, do you have something better because the evidence says otherwise. But I see discussing this with Kevin like wrestling with a pig in the mud: the pig gets frustrated and I get dirty.

Yes I can but I have better things to do with my time than feed a perpetual troll who has no interest in learning about the underlying issues.

Old news, poorly substantiated and ignorant on too many facts to even comment on. Par for your course Kevin.

There's a difference between educated - which most of the people definitely are - and experienced in the specific field they're called to oversee. That said, thank God that the white 1% are finally getting the representation they require in the US President's Cabinet. I mean, we wouldn't want to do like the Canadians and actually put people who have extensive experience in their field in charge of those departments. Or add some real diversity. Trudeau's cabinet (just a few examples): Minister of Health is a woman family doctor, a chief of medicine at one of the largest hospitals in the country and a medical professor. Minister of Transport is an astronaut who flew 3 times on the space shuttle and former president of the Canadian Space Agency. Minister of National Defense is an immigrant Sikh Veteran, who worked for 11 years a cop and who served 3 tours of duty in Afghanistan. Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is an Indian immigrant who worked for the Edmonton Transit System Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food is a former farmer. Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness was a Queen's Scout. Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development is a Sikh who was a financial analyst for Nike and Ford. Minister of Finance is a successful businessman who grew his business from a few hundred employees to thousands. Minister of Justice was a crown prosecutor and is a First Nations leader. Minister of Sport, and Persons with Disabilities is a visually impaired Paralympian who has focused on human rights as an attorney. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and Canadian Coastguard is Inuit. Minister of Science is a medical geographer with a PhD. Minister of Immigration, Citizenship and Refugees was an Immigration critic. There are several scientists in the cabinet, and it is made up of 50% women. One might equally question some of Obama's selections for his cabinet so this isn't just a ding at Trump though he certainly has taken it to an extreme.

If Democrats want to win they need new guard not old. As for GOP, Rick Perry is a joke.

Gary did you make a pregame visit to Carlisle this week? http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/real-time/Trump-supporter-banned-for-life-after-viral-tirade-on-Delta-flight-to-Allentown.html

This has become tedious and highly representative of the quality of conversation going on across the country right now.

Best afternoon of the year for a ride without aquestion. 70 degrees and no bugs.

Did you actually read the article? Courts said there is no issue with the10 commandments being part of a display. It just can't be exclusive and that's what Mauzy attempted. I agree with the courts.

Actually it doesn't eat at me whatsoever Gary. I'm perfectly calm about this. The people spoke and because I support our democratic republic and our history of peaceful transition, Trump is our President and I pray he does well. Trump is President and the Democrats failed because this was a year of change when so many were tired with what they have been served through Obama (the ACA, social issues, but most importantly because they think they're getting screwed by the economy and are tired of elite politicians who don't care about them one fig). That's exactly what Pie argues. It's a Change year and Hillary wasn't just damaged and a liar but also a continuation of the elite establishment. Thanks for trying though. When Jimmy Carter was elected in 1976, when Bill Clinton was elected in 1996. After the midterm elections in George W Bush's presidency in 2004. After Obama was elected in 2008. And basically all of the 1960s under Kennedy and Johnson, all of the 40's under FDR.

If Gary was a Brit, here's how I imagine him explaining why Trump won. Oh and if he was a Liberal too.

Blah, blah, blah. The people have spoken. Let's move on. I sure hope he is successful at simply being a decent President. Regie Hamm perfectly captures my mood on the nonsense going on ever since Tuesday night. https://regiehammblog.wordpress.com/2016/11/09/president-trump/ I told my wife that Kelly Conway and Ivanka Trump's new job was going to be remedial US Government 101.

There is no way incomes would ever equalize with a flat tax. Your hope is just a dream under that scheme. There is no mechanism that even begins to facilitate that. It seems not even worth discussing this with you. This too is utopic thinking. Fair according to whom? You stripped everything out and then you started reallocating according to various principles that are immediately susceptible to subjective decisions. I have no idea what a fair tax is. (I understand what Johnson thinks it is but his approach is highly problematic). Sounds great and probably has lovely talking points but seems no different from a flat tax which I already explained why it fails. I will say that if you wanted to turn the US into Greece at the fastest pace possible this would be one of the better approaches. Consumption taxes are the most regressive possible because the rich accumulate and do not spend.

The word regressive means that a tax takes a proportionately greater amount of money from those with lower incomes. Think about it, how much does someone who makes $40,000 spend proportionately on surviving (rent, clothing, food, transportation) vs how much does a 1% er who makes $1,000,000 per year spend on survival? Depending on where they live that lower middle class income probably just scrapes by. And they probably benefit greatly from a number of tax deductions that push them down into the 15% tax rate since they just break into the 25% rate which starts at $37k AGI. Whereas the 1% er is hit with a 39.6% tax assuming they have no deductions and both people in this discussion take their salary direct rather than in stocks or other monetary vehicles that would shift over into discussions of short and longer term capital gains. Now, the reality is that the 1% has a good accountant who helps them come up with all kinds of approaches to ensure they get dropped down into the 28 or maybe even the 25% tax bracket, especially if most of the salary gets paid not in a monthly check but in stock options. And they also make significant donations to charities, might have a side business that is struggling and provides a means for applying losses to their tax rate. Still in the current system, the 1% er is probably paying 10-15% more proportionally than the 99% er in our scenario. But if you move to a flat tax with no deductions then your lower middle class are going to get slammed. Proportionally they'll pay substantially more of the budget than any of the upper class earners. Say you set it at 15%. Then $6000 is going to come out of the $40k guy's paycheck. And $150k is going to come out of the $1M guy's paycheck. Is it fair? Sure they're both paying equally. But, the difference is wealthy guy does substantially better in this scenario than our current tax system. This is actually why Republicans would prefer a flat tax. Because it would substantially benefit their wealthiest donors. And what are they going to do with all that money they save? They're not going to spend it and they're unlikely to donate more to charities since there is no longer a financial incentive for them to do so. No, they're going to save it and invest it and watch it grow and continue to benefit from low capital gains taxes (15%). And we'll see our income disparity levels continue to spread in this country. A well structured tax system is not about wealth redistribution. It's about fairly contributing back to society at greater levels that are proportional to your ability to do so without significantly impacting an average lifestyle that is comfortable.

And that's basically the law given the majority decision in US v Windsor which declared the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional. However, that only extends to public goods. If a church rents their chapel for weddings then they can be obliged to rent it to any kind of couple who wishes to get married. However, the religion / church is not obliged to perform weddings if the clergy does not do them for pay. And especially if the rites of marriage are recognized by that religion as only belonging to a certain orientation (male + female for instance) then they are free to declare that marriage is only between a man and a woman and are exercising their religious freedoms in doing so. And those of differing religious beliefs have a right to speak publicly and disagree with a law that might have been passed and preach otherwise as well without being persecuted by the law.

Funny thing is most of that is taxed when it's spent. We're not talking about expenditures, we're talking about income. It's hardly semantics Alden. Why does the government collect taxes? That's exactly what I asked. You went simplistic while the very article you quoted provides the answer. While taxes are used to fund the government it's the policy of taxation that is critical here. If you cannot understand that tax policy is a legal lever used to drive economic behavior then you're completely ignoring the reason why some organizations and people, depending on their circumstances, are taxed differently. And if you cannot understand why the important question of examining tax policy matters as to the impact on the economy then that very easily explains why you believe a flat tax is the answer to everything. On the surface it seems fair. But the question to ask is whether it would actually help improve our economic situation. Most economists say no. That it's a really bad idea because it unfairly impacts the lower class and offers a massive tax break to the top 10 percent because as a percentage of income they consume substantially less. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/418604/flat-tax-questionable-economics-bad-politics-reihan-salam