Free Republic 3rd Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $7,735
Woo hoo!! And the first 8% is in!! Thank you all very much!!

Posts by Norseman

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • 100 Million Americans Not Working!

    07/07/2015 9:37:05 AM PDT · 48 of 55
    Norseman to Qwackertoo

    >>and Libs will tell you the Labor Participation Rate includes 98 year olds. Where do they come up with this carp?<<

    First, I’m no liberal. I just really detest this 100 million Americans aren’t working b.s. because that number (usually it’s 90+ million, by the way) includes every retiree, college student, and non-working spouse in the country, which is inane.

    The Labor Participation Rate doesn’t include the elderly retired, however, and is a decent portrayal of the abysmal labor market since 2009. The reported unemployment rate is 5.3% only because so many people have either quit looking for jobs because they can’t find one or, more likely, are being paid enough welfare that they don’t want to look for jobs anymore.

    A better way to describe what’s going on would be to say that 7 million people are unemployed and looking for work, while 10 million more would be working if it made sense for them to get a job, but they either can’t find one or don’t want to give up their welfare benefits. (I made up the numbers, but they probably aren’t too far off.)

  • Judicial Watch: New Documents Reveal DOJ, IRS, and FBI Plan to Seek Criminal Charges...

    07/07/2015 9:16:56 AM PDT · 21 of 39
    Norseman to GOPJ

    >>We’ve got to stay on this like white on rice...<<

    I haven’t figured out exactly how yet, but that’s gotta be a racist comment...

  • Donald Trump: It was my decision to cut off ties with Macy's

    07/01/2015 11:01:03 AM PDT · 34 of 39
    Norseman to GIdget2004

    If Trump keeps campaigning the way he has so far he just might have to file bankruptcy yet again....

  • Donald Trump Files a $500 Million Lawsuit Against Univision

    07/01/2015 10:55:02 AM PDT · 98 of 100
    Norseman to SoFloFreeper

    In 1992 Ross Perot took almost 20% of the CA vote. In 1994, Governor Wilson, a Republican, ran on Prop 187 and won, but after that it was all over...

    Some perspective:

    By the way, I’m in favor of border control, solving the illegal issue, including sending many of them home, but I’m not anti-immigrant. Prop 187 was anti-immigrant, however, and it has had a lasting impact on the vote in California.

    There are smarter ways to address the immigration problem, ways that don’t ensure that the GOP will become a permanent minority party (pun not intended.)

  • Scott Walker: the new Thad Cochran (Hires Brad Dayspring)

    07/01/2015 7:33:14 AM PDT · 38 of 42
    Norseman to palmer

    >>Dayspring is an establishment putz, but his job in the NRSC was to back Cochran ...None of those shumcks has any core principles.<<

    I keep claiming that Walker is exceptionally astute when it comes to the political side of things, so here are two conclusions if you assume this was a smart political move (instead of simply using it as an excuse to dump on him):

    1) Dayspring got Cochran elected. Clearly he was effective. Hiring him keeps him from being hired by an opponent. That said, I’ll be very surprised if Walker turns him loose on his GOP opponents to dig up dirt or, especially, to fabricate allegations about them.

    2. However, assuming Hillary is the nominee, imagine the material Dayspring will have to work with. Seriously, if you’re looking for dirt to spread on a candidate, what better place to look than Hillary Clinton? You don’t even have to lie about any of it. Just make sure it gets past the MSM and into voters’ hands and minds.

    And while I strongly suspect that Walker will observe Reagan’s 11th commandment, I also believe that he will have no reservations about going after the Democrat nominee. If that’s the case, this could be an excellent hire, rather than a bad one. Hire someone who will do the job with a vengeance. We may be “known by the company we keep,” but we’re not necessarily known by those we hire to get a job done.

  • Donald Trump Files a $500 Million Lawsuit Against Univision

    06/30/2015 6:08:49 PM PDT · 54 of 100
    Norseman to fr_freak

    >>Your sort of prissy, pinky-in-the-air sensibilities are exactly why fags now own the military, marriage, and bakeries across the country, and Mexicans own the southwest.<<

    Yes, sure. And The Donald, by attacking Univision, will have written off an even larger percentage of the Hispanic vote than the GOP normally manages.

    Nearly everyone commenting has the same “winning” attitude as Trump...screw the Hispanics....

    That strategy cost us California about 20 years ago which might be the real reason things have gone badly for the GOP since.

    Meanwhile, Trump has illustrated exactly why his foreign policy will probably be even worse than Obama’s and that’s saying something.

  • Conservatives Love Scott Walker’s Anti-Gay Transition

    06/30/2015 9:11:44 AM PDT · 16 of 29
    Norseman to Rockitz

    >>“From a political perspective, I don’t understand why you would do that.”

    I guess I’m not sure either. <<

    Walker is very astute politically. He will hedge until he decides upon a final position, but you can tell when he’s settled upon one.

    He did that with immigration, for example, when he finally stated that American jobs and wages need to be considered in any discussion of how many are allowed to immigrate. That stance subsumed the illegal issue since if we’re going to set legal immigration levels, we obviously have to stop illegal immigration or the whole exercise becomes meaningless.

    As I posted above this one, I think he’s probably found a sweet spot in the gay marriage issue as well, although at first I was doubtful. He’s not dismissing the Supreme Court, but is suggesting what has to be done if the voters in any particular state are against gay marriage being legalized, or even if they believe that civil unions (or marriages) should be legal but only with certain benefits conferred, such as visitation rights, legal inheritance, etc., and certain responsibilities such as alimony payments upon dissolution, joint liability for taxes, etc.

    If the issue subsides, the call for an amendment will diminish. But if the issue grows more contentious, like the abortion issue has, he will be in a good spot politically for advocating it, because it’s a reasonable response that could be quite effective in addressing the issue.

    I haven’t fully worked this out in my own mind, so feel free to lodge concerns.

  • Conservatives Love Scott Walker’s Anti-Gay Transition

    06/30/2015 8:54:58 AM PDT · 15 of 29
    Norseman to Cincinatus' Wife

    Just as the Supreme Court went full-bore into unrestricted abortion years ago and have been clawing our way back to some form of sanity ever since, that same Court now sends us full-bore into gay marriage nationwide.

    At first, I didn’t agree with Walker’s proposal, thinking that state-by-state laws are no longer the answer due to the mobility of the population. It makes no sense to be legally married in California, but then, following a move, to not be legally married in Wisconsin.

    However, state laws are relatively easy to change, and a constitutional amendment leaving the matter to the States might just be achievable, particularly if a Convention of the States is ever called. With an amendment on the books, if it became apparent that allowing gay marriages was causing serious societal ills or leading to inexorable pressure to relax the law to include polygamy, etc., a large number of States could move to counter the Supreme Court’s ruling, and do so relatively quickly.

    State-by-state determination of many of the issues attendant to gay marriage would also be a useful exercise, much as certain states are now experimenting with marijuana legalization.

    It’s also relatively easy to justify such an amendment. If the country is four-square behind gay marriage, all states would authorize it so it would have no impact. If they’re not, why deny the citizens of certain states their right to establish their own law? (As was, incidentally, the case regarding marriage only a short year or so ago.)

  • Democratic Turnout a '16 Risk Factor; Poll Finds.

    06/30/2015 8:10:32 AM PDT · 11 of 20
    Norseman to Moonman62

    >>Fortunately for the Clintons, the GOP has the same problems.<<

    Perhaps, but that doesn’t mean the eventual GOP nominee will. The right nominee will be able to draw a sharp contrast between the DC corruption of the past two decades and what the future should hold.

    The wrong nominee will be seen as more of the same, and will probably lose.

  • Democratic Turnout a '16 Risk Factor; Poll Finds.

    06/30/2015 7:44:45 AM PDT · 8 of 20
    Norseman to Din Maker

    >>That’s what scares me. Our side does not do well with any one of those three demographics.<<

    Frankly, if the GOP candidate can’t convince young people, blacks, and Hispanics that they will be living in a better country with greater opportunity and less corruption under the GOP than under the now-Socialist Democrat Party, then the GOP candidate deserves to lose. Even unmarried women ought to be reachable with a message of opportunity and growth.

    Hint: Another Romney isn’t the answer.

    The GOP has got to drop its 47% fears and quit assuming that most of the Democrat votes are dependent upon government handouts. Cynicism is not going to win the next election, but it could doom Clinton if the GOP candidate understands how to sell American values, instead of selling America out as the current administration has done, with Clinton’s help, I’d add.

  • State Employees Are Having A Hard Time Explaining Scott Walker’s New Voting Restrictions

    06/29/2015 2:48:51 PM PDT · 26 of 29
    Norseman to Cincinatus' Wife

    I’d certainly question the “hundreds of thousands of Wisconsinites” who lack IDs that the article mentioned.

    WI has about 6 million people. Assume 4 million of these are adults. Assume “hundreds of thousands” is 400 to 500,000. So one of every 8 to 10 adults is WI is running around without a photo ID? I’d bet it’s more like one out of two or three hundred. That would work out to tens of thousands of Wisconsinites and that might still be an exaggeration unless they’re counting nursing home residents who are so out of touch they shouldn’t vote anyway.

    In short, if you’re a functioning resident of Wisconsin, you probably have a photo ID already. For that matter, if you’re an illegal alien, you probably do also, and legal aliens almost certainly do.

  • State Employees Are Having A Hard Time Explaining Scott Walker’s New Voting Restrictions

    06/29/2015 2:38:52 PM PDT · 24 of 29
    Norseman to AppyPappy

    >>The objections are ridiculous. You need an ID to get medical services these days.<<

    Hell, I was asked for my photo ID to get a visitor’s pass to visit someone in the hospital the other day.

    I can just imagine the long line of disappointed people who would visit someone but don’t have ID’s. In fact, I’d have to imagine it because no such line was apparent.

  • Is Obama Disappointed by the Christian Response in Charleston?

    06/27/2015 8:21:40 AM PDT · 25 of 32
    Norseman to RoosterRedux

    The political implications of the Charleston response are, in my opinion, absolutely enormous.

    President Obama has spent the better part of his two terms trying to foment racial strife between his supposed black constituency and white Americans. He’s done this by calling out the police every time a white (or at least half-white) police officer is involved in the shooting of an unarmed black person. This is patently clear to anyone with an open mind on the matter.

    Also clear is the fact that the police are now becoming unwilling to continue to put their lives and careers at risk to the extent they have always done, knowing that the highest law enforcement officials in the country will view any adverse event they’re involved in with suspicion, and prejudice.

    The result: Innocent black families in our cities are increasingly at risk. More important, they know it because they’re living it. Furthermore, most now realize why they’re at increased risk. Hint: It’s not because all the police officers that have been protecting them and their neighborhoods for years have suddenly become racist bastards.

    This is why Charleston is enormously important politically. The sustained effort to stay on message by forgiving the shooter despite the undoubted efforts of the likes of Sharpton and, yes, President Obama, to shift the message to how to stop white racists bearing guns is clear proof that the black community has made up its collective mind and is now rejecting our President’s efforts to divide white from black and police from the communities they serve.

    The GOP candidate who realizes what is happening and who speaks to the black community with the intent of addressing their real concern today, rather than the fake racism President Obama holds forth, will make very serious inroads into the black vote. Essentially, Charleston is a message to all politicians to get real about the harm the President’s attitude and actions have done, and are doing, to their communities.

    They are respectfully, but very clearly, revolting against his leadership as it pertains to their lives. This could be well mean that black Americans have learned from President Obama that voting in lockstep for a black Democrat, and possibly for any Democrat, is a voting strategy that needs to be reassessed.

  • CNN/WMUR Poll NH Republican Primary

    06/26/2015 7:59:07 AM PDT · 8 of 10
    Norseman to CaptainK

    I’m not certain, but I suspect they’ll have to pass on voting in the GOP primary to do that, and this year that’s not likely to happen.

    Incidentally, one good thing about Sanders running is that it will tend to keep Dem voters from messing with the GOP primaries as long as he’s doing okay. Once it becomes a certainty that Hillary has dispatched Sanders, the Dems will cross over and mess with the GOP wherever they can.

  • Walker: States will not rescue ObamaCare in wake of court ruling

    06/24/2015 1:01:26 PM PDT · 27 of 39
    Norseman to GIdget2004

    >>“Governors across the country have been clear: If the Supreme Court strikes down the Obama executive overreach, we will not bail out Obama at the expense of the American people,” Walker wrote in an op-ed for on Wednesday.<<

    I’m not down on Boehner and McConnell like most here are, but I will say this: The GOP needs leadership that can make a case accurately and succinctly.

    “We will not bail out Obama at the expense of the American people” is an excellent example of what I mean.

    Both Boehner and McConnell seem incapable of making such clarifying, and motivating, remarks.

  • Judge postpones Obama administration’s fracking rule from taking effect

    06/24/2015 9:49:20 AM PDT · 5 of 5
    Norseman to bestintxas

    The Left showed us how to use the courts to frustrate an agenda popular with the voters and now it’s backfiring on them. Couldn’t happen to a more deserving bunch.

    It’s nice to see the Left get a little of its own medicine for once. Now if only the upcoming Obamacare ruling would disappoint them as well...

  • No relatives show up to claim 5-year-old left at Kohl’s after attempted theft

    06/22/2015 5:57:27 PM PDT · 20 of 22
    Norseman to bgill

    The court should sever two things: 1) all family claims to the child himself and 2) all financial support being paid to grandma and mom by the government, whether for child support or any other purpose. (Why should the taxpayers subsidize people like this?)

    Then, put the child up for adoption immediately. His case is getting widespread attention and he would almost certainly be readily adopted.

    Next, publicize another case, rinse, and repeat.

  • Is America's Leftward Lurch Permanent?

    06/22/2015 5:38:36 PM PDT · 37 of 41
    Norseman to Kaslin

    I don’t think America is lurching leftward; I do think the Democrat leadership has already lurched far-leftward, however.

    I’m optimistic that the leadership of Pelosi, Reid, and Obama has turned off many traditional Democrat voters and that the 2014 election will be a harbinger of the 2016 election.

    If you talk to friends and neighbors, people are just plain fed up with President Obama and the way things are going. If that remains the case in November 2016, the voters, even many traditional Democrat voters, will, I think, vote for a change of leadership. And Hillary won’t represent that change.

    The question then becomes how many traditional Democrat voters will take the leap with the leadership the next time we go to the polls. It’s hard to believe that many Democrats who lead otherwise what are essentially conservative lives (going to church, hunting, hard-working) will follow the current leadership and align with their gay marriage, anti-Christian, gun-grabbing, indefinite-unemployment-compensation, leanings.

    While it will take a good communicator for a GOP Presidential candidate, I think the message almost writes itself.

  • American recycling is stalling, and the big blue bin is one reason why

    06/21/2015 9:09:47 AM PDT · 43 of 49
    Norseman to The Antiyuppie

    >>No matter how bad the kooks want it, The ONLY things worth home recycling are aluminum ... and electronics .... Period. Everything else is just for show. There is no shortage of sand for glass and trees for paper. These things are wildly energy-negative to recycle.<<

    You might be exactly right, or you might be wrong on say, cardboard paper. I don’t know.

    I do know, however, that if we would let the price mechanism work it would tell us. If no one’s paying for it, it’s not worth recycling. In fact, it’s then more likely that the act of recycling is using more resources than land-filling or burning in an incinerator.

    Plus, if the pricing mechanism were relied upon, the material flow would adjust to changes in demand. If the price of aluminum cans fell, less would be recycled.

    I once explained this position to a liberal and his response was an incredulous “So, you’ll only recycle something if you get paid for it?” to which my response was “Exactly.”

    We just don’t trust markets anymore in this country, even though market prices are the most reliable indicators of value that man has ever developed. No single person, and certainly no government bureaucracy, can match the performance of market pricing in determining whether it makes economic sense to do something.

  • While Your Attention Was Diverted to Charleston, House Passed Unconstitutional TPA

    06/21/2015 8:37:02 AM PDT · 29 of 29
    Norseman to Democrat_media

    >>congress is neutered...<<

    Nope. Congress gets to vote it down, and most definitely would if the result was anywhere close to what you’re being told by the scaremongers on both the left and right....and there are plenty of them on both sides of this one.

    You want to shoot yourself in the foot, become a protectionist. Might as well advocate for tariffs on products coming from adjoining States while you’re at it. That way you can pay more for everything, including the buggy whips and the dial telephones you’d still be using.

  • While Your Attention Was Diverted to Charleston, House Passed Unconstitutional TPA

    06/21/2015 8:31:22 AM PDT · 28 of 29
    Norseman to lodi90

    >>TPA guarantees passage of secret trade agreements nobody has seen before approving TPA.<<

    People keep asserting that passage of TPA guarantees passage of anything Obama negotiates. You base it on “because every trade agreement has passed until now.”

    But it’s not automatic, as you assume. Congress can still vote it down, and will if it contains the sort of b.s. being promulgated by both the Left and Right (the Left because the want it to go down for economic reasons.)

    Another interpretation of the fact that trade agreements have always passed is that the process works. The negotiators know that overstepping will result in years of wasted effort, so they simply don’t. Instead, they negotiate tariff and quota reductions in good faith. That is a fact borne out by history, the same history you’re using to claim Obama will be able to lay waste to the U.S. via the same process.

  • While Your Attention Was Diverted to Charleston, House Passed Unconstitutional TPA

    06/20/2015 8:34:34 AM PDT · 21 of 29
    Norseman to SoConPubbie

    While I think your first argument is suspect (Congress doing something unconstitutional now is not really unconstitutional because they retain the right to do the same sort of action later constitutionally...seems like a patently silly argument), nevertheless your link to the discussion of treaties and other executive actions was exactly what this discussion needs.

    We’ve passed similar trade agreements in the same way for decades now, and none have been found unconstitutional, because they weren’t unconstitutional, because they weren’t considered treaties. End of argument.

    All the “but, but, sure looks like a treaty” comments in the world don’t change that fact.

    Most people against TPA either:

    1. are against free trade, and/or,
    2. don’t understand what the TPA actually authorizes, and/or,
    3. think the GOP is a branch of the Democrat/Progressive Party.

    Frankly, I think most who are against it on the GOP side fall under all three categories, i.e., they’re against free trade, don’t realize what the current TPA authorizes, and think Boehner and McConnell are closet Democrats.

  • Dem Strategist:‘I Cannot Imagine the Horror That Could’ve Occurred’ if Churchgoers Were Armed(Trunc)

    06/19/2015 7:59:32 PM PDT · 49 of 107
    Norseman to Hugh the Scot

    I’d say it must be comforting to be so ignorant and still be able to find someone who will hire you as a “Dem strategist.”

  • Sanders surge is becoming a bigger problem for Clinton

    06/19/2015 9:12:32 AM PDT · 43 of 62
    Norseman to dfwgator

    >>...he has a lot of passionate support, but it’s very shallow, and he’ll fade as quickly as he has risen.<<

    I suspect he’ll take out Hillary before he fades. The Democrat Party has moved so far leftward under Pelosi, Reid, and Obama that Sanders probably appeals to most of the activists left in it. In fact, if wouldn’t surprise me at all if Pelosi, or Reid, or Obama themselves wouldn’t prefer Sanders if they thought he could win it all. His socialism is closer to their philosophy than Hillary’s is.

    He could come very close to winning the Iowa caucus and could win NH after which Hillary would look like a very weak candidate for the Dems, much like what happened to LBJ under similar circumstances. While I doubt she’d pull out voluntarily, the party might then encourage someone else to run. That’s when their pathetic bench will come back to bite them.

  • Scott Walker’s latest target: College professors

    06/18/2015 7:22:35 AM PDT · 24 of 58
    Norseman to glorgau

    >>The professoriate has been skewed 90/10 in favor of the Dems for years. If they are so politically “aware”, how can they be surprised when there is political blowback from the other side?<<

    This is what I like about Walker. He goes after the Left for their previous activities. Too many conservatives, while not working with the Left, will leave them alone in their little bureaucracies where they wait until they regain power and then emerge to continue dragging us all leftward via laws and regulations.

    Walker quietly ferrets them out, removing their legal protections and their taxpayer funding so that they’re no longer there when a Democrat regains the executive branch. Meanwhile, the world doesn’t end, and people begin to realize we never needed all those protections and/or positions in the first place and, because budgets were cut (or not increased), they find it harder to re-establish the left-leaning bureaucracies that Walker decimated.

    He’s done this so far with (at least): public-sector unions; DNR “science” positions; Planned Parenthood clinics; and now, colleges. Believe me, if your organization has been leaning too far to the left in Wisconsin and you depend upon taxpayer funding, your budget is at risk.

    DC obviously could use such an approach. It’s a target-rich environment, beyond belief, and it would be fascinating to watch the bombing run after-action reports if Walker and a GOP Congress had the opportunity to lay waste to the Left. There is no doubt in my mind that this would occur, none, which is why I find him so interesting.

  • Wisconsin Governor Walker leads among Republican conservatives

    06/18/2015 7:06:20 AM PDT · 21 of 35
    Norseman to Vaquero

    >>The trade agreements are exceedingly complex and I see good and bad in protectionist policies. By buying cheap foreign goods, our dollars go farther but there is also an unemployment problem.

    Suffice it to say I’m not an economist.<<

    Trade agreements are primarily about tearing down protectionist measures like tariffs and quotas that one country sets up to prevent foreign-made goods from being competitive.

    The net effect of such tariffs and quotas is depressive to the country setting them up. They protect local industries that are less efficient than competitors in another country and they discourage capital from within those countries from flowing to better uses, where local industry can compete internationally.

    It’s like plumbers doing their own wiring and electricians doing their own plumbing because high income taxes make it too expensive to hire someone who can obviously do a better job because that’s what they’re trained to do, and do every day. Lower the tax burden and people start hiring the best person for the job.

    The same holds for international trade. Remove the protectionist measures and each country ends up concentrating on producing goods and services at which they have the best advantage, or a comparative advantage, as it’s called. If a country has excess labor, they will end up producing goods. If they have a lot of educated people, they will end up concentrating on intellectual services, like writing software, or producing highly technical products, like drugs, new electronic applications, etc.

    Historically, when a country has dropped protectionist measures, even without a quid pro quo from other countries, they have progressed, and when they have set up such measures, they have regressed. Herbert Hoover was a protectionist, and likely contributed to the Great Depression, for example, although the Fed had a large part in it also.

  • Bernie Sanders Is Building an Army to Take D.C.

    06/15/2015 1:39:47 PM PDT · 22 of 26
    Norseman to vette6387

    Well, we won’t do that, and yet I think under a GOP president we’ll start to recover nicely. Boehner and McConnell are light years better than Pelosi and Reid, regardless how detested they are by many in the GOP.

  • Seniors Favor GOP When Hillary Clinton is the Democratic Nominee

    06/15/2015 10:07:09 AM PDT · 22 of 26
    Norseman to Cincinatus' Wife

    From the report: “Urban seniors are more likely to vote for a Democratic Congressional candidate (DEM: 50%, GOP: 33%), while Suburban (DEM: 31%, GOP: 46%) and Rural seniors (DEM: 28%, GOP: 52%) more likely to vote Republican.”

    Urban seniors, presumably including many elderly blacks, vote DEM by a 17% spread, whereas suburban and rural seniors vote GOP by 15% and 24% spreads respectively. Seems to me that a spread like that should be seen as an opportunity for GOP candidates to make an appeal to elderly blacks, possibly by talking about the prospects for their grandchildren if things don’t change?

    I don’t pretend to know the right line of approach, but I think there could be one that works if it emphasizes messages that resonate more with seniors than with blacks, per se.

    Also, it’s interesting that more people were undecided (19%) when choosing Walker vs. Hillary, than when choosing Bush vs. Hillary (14%), even though Walker did better than Bush overall (45% vs. 44%). It would seem that they are more willing to have a favorable opinion of Hillary when Bush is running, and more willing to consider an alternative when it’s not Bush. That is, if it’s another Bush, they’ve already decided to vote for someone else.

  • Bernie Sanders Is Building an Army to Take D.C.

    06/15/2015 9:49:55 AM PDT · 15 of 26
    Norseman to libstripper

    Bernie Sanders is going to scare the hell out of Hillary. The Democrat Party, what remains of it, has moved so far to the Progressive Left that it’s left many of its traditional voters behind.

    I think there’s a reasonable probability that the Progressive base that turns out for the early primaries will prefer an honest Sanders over a dishonest Hillary, and that he’ll come close to winning Iowa and might even win New Hampshire after voters see how weak Hillary’s results are in Iowa.

    If the U.S. has become an out and out socialist country, so be it, but I think it’s much more likely that Sanders leaves the Democrat Party stranded on a Progressive/Socialist island with food and supplies to support only 30% of the voters.

    I thought turning the country over to Pelosi and Reid in 2006, and then adding Obama in 2008, would be devastating to our prospects, but I now think the country can recover nicely, given elections since. However, the Democrat Party might never recover from its full-scale lurch to the Left.


    06/12/2015 9:39:24 AM PDT · 136 of 138
    Norseman to Arthur McGowan

    Yes, all that’s probably true. But those issues concern the trade agreement itself, not the authorizing bill currently under consideration. The contents of that bill are not secret. It just specifies the terms of how the up/down vote on the eventual trade agreement will be conducted.

    You’re getting worked up about something that isn’t happening, or at least you’re confusing one action with the other.

    Look, I don’t trust Obama, at all, but Congress is controlled by the GOP and he’ll be wasting his time if he negotiates the stuff you fear because they won’t approve the deal when it’s finally put to a vote under terms specified in the current bill under consideration.


    06/12/2015 9:31:19 AM PDT · 135 of 138
    Norseman to VTenigma

    >>Every trade agreement that has had a TPA has been passed without amendments, no exceptions<<

    Yes, they have, and the world didn’t end, did it? In other words, the process works.

    Why didn’t Clinton, upon negotiating NAFTA, do all this stuff everyone is all worked up about way back then, if it’s so easy to pull off?

    If Obama negotiates a terrible trade deal, Congress won’t approve it, and the entire process will have been a waste of time, which is exactly why it won’t be a terrible trade deal....unless, of course, one is against fair trade deals regardless.

    And they were all passed without amendments because that’s exactly what the authorizing process specifies. It’s also why agreements are reached in the first place.


    06/11/2015 2:40:51 PM PDT · 112 of 138
    Norseman to Arthur McGowan

    No, it wasn’t a Catch-22, because nothing about the bill currently before Congress is being done in secret.

    Yes, the trade agreement is being negotiated in secret, but when it comes before Congress it will be fully revealed and you will be able to read it “in its entirety” should you choose to do so.

    And you’ll never see a one line free trade agreement, but free trade typically benefits all parties to the agreement, so hammering out details is worth the effort.

    And, for the record, I don’t trust President Obama as a negotiator either, but any agreement he signs on to has to be approved by Congress. That severely limits his options for going off the reservation.

    (Spare me the cynicism...I’ll do it for you....Congress....HAHAHAHA...okay?)


    06/11/2015 2:13:52 PM PDT · 110 of 138
    Norseman to Arthur McGowan

    That’s what I thought. You can’t answer that simple question, because nothing Congress is currently considering for passage is being done in secret.

    Yes, provisions of trade agreements get negotiated in secret, but those agreements must later be approved in the full light of day.


    06/11/2015 2:06:41 PM PDT · 109 of 138
    Norseman to Big E

    >>I disagree. I think the outrage is warranted. This process they are voting on is to lower the bar on passing this secret trade agreement. Why? What is in this trade agreement, which deserves the bar to be lowered? Why shouldn’t it go through the normal process? <<

    First, this is the normal process for negotiating trade agreements. The reason for the authorization bill is to set the process by which the final trade agreement gets an up or down vote with no amendments. If amendments were allowed, Congress could amend the agreement, after which each of the signatory countries would also have to agree to the amendment for the amended agreement to go into effect. Meanwhile, other countries would be making differing amendments. No agreement would every be reached.

    Trade agreements are tough to negotiate because they require give and take by most of the countries party to them. Tariffs are lowered, or dropped altogether. Existing quotas that frustrate international trade are addressed. Anything one country does to protect its own industry might become a subject of negotiation. If all negotiations were out in the open, each country’s leaders would be assailed every time a concession was made and nothing could be hammered out.

    Instead, the parties negotiate through give and take, bearing in mind that every country’s governing body has to approve the final deal that results. If the U.S. is taken to the cleaners because President Obama is a lousy negotiator, a GOP-controlled Congress won’t approve it, despite the cries of all the cynics.


    06/11/2015 1:53:56 PM PDT · 104 of 138
    Norseman to Lurkinanloomin

    So you really think a GOP-controlled Congress will approve a trade agreement that contains the sort of provisions people have been railing about in conservative circles recently?

    I guess you do...


    06/11/2015 1:47:24 PM PDT · 102 of 138
    Norseman to sevlex

    >>Jeez, put down the Koolaid. The problem here is it is being done in SECRET!!<<

    Please specify exactly what is being done in secret regarding the bill presently under consideration.

    Yes, the trade agreements are negotiated behind the scenes but must be submitted to Congress for approval but the bill currently being considered is not a trade agreement.


    06/11/2015 10:29:12 AM PDT · 77 of 138
    Norseman to Mariner

    “No we’re voting on a procedure,” Ryan said. “How does Congress consider trade agreements? Then in the fall, probably in the fall, we’ll consider a trade agreement—which hasn’t been completed yet. That’s why we don’t know what’s in it because it doesn’t exist yet.”

    What part of this process do people criticizing Ryan not understand? Or is everyone criticizing just against free trade with other nations?

    Repeating Ryan, this is not a vote on a negotiated trade agreement. This is a vote establishing how an up or down vote on the trade agreement that is finally negotiated between several nations will be handled in the U.S.

    The final result agreed to between participating nations will be published for all to read, and lodge objection to, before it is voted on by a GOP-controlled Congress. If the final agreement is as bad as people are implying, Congress obviously won’t ratify it.

    But again, if you’re just against free trade on principle, why not just say that and object on that basis, instead of objecting to provisions that aren’t before Congress for a vote. Those provisions, if they end up in the final, negotiated, agreement, will get plenty of discussion when the time comes but, as Ryan states, Congress in this authorization bill is trying to prohibit certain items from even being negotiated, i.e., climate change provisions and immigration provisions.

    I don’t get the outrage, unless it’s just anti-free-trade, in which case just say so.


    06/11/2015 10:15:02 AM PDT · 64 of 138
    Norseman to Pirate Ragnar

    Nicely put....

  • Ted Cruz is finished: Laughable “strategy” that guarantees he’ll get nowhere near the White House

    06/11/2015 10:09:03 AM PDT · 77 of 83
    Norseman to SteveH

    >>intelligent people recognize that benefits are not likely to be derived from something that is offered as “free.”<<

    Funny, I seem to derive a lot of benefit from living in a “free” country.

    Do you think “free trade” means that we’ll be dealing in free goods? Seriously?

    While we’re at it, maybe we should set up some trade restrictions between the states? And why stop there? Let’s build trade fences around individual cities too.

    Only economics illiterates fail to understand the obvious benefits derived from a system of free trade. Those same illiterates also generally have no understanding of the importance of free markets and, unfortunately, there are far too many of them who vote and even hold elective office.

  • Rouzer looks to dismantle federal education department

    06/10/2015 5:28:58 PM PDT · 13 of 15
    Norseman to Extremely Extreme Extremist

    The states already fund the bulk of public education on their own.

    While I doubt he’ll campaign on this, if Walker is elected the chances of eliminating the federal Dept. of Education are very good, in my opinion.

  • Ted Cruz is finished: Laughable “strategy” that guarantees he’ll get nowhere near the White House

    06/10/2015 5:26:33 PM PDT · 60 of 83
    Norseman to SteveH

    >>cruz would be great if he would dump free trade.<<

    So, now to get conservative votes a candidate has to be a protectionist?

    I thought that was the Democrats’ job, to protect their donations from union leaders?

    Free trade benefits all; it’s not a zero sum game.

    And if the Obama administration agrees to a bad treaty, the House and Senate won’t approve it and it won’t go into effect.

  • What is driving Scott Walker's war on Wisconsin universities

    06/10/2015 2:16:13 PM PDT · 23 of 43
    Norseman to Parmy

    >>....and stopping the stupid ideas coming from liberal-progressive-lame-brained professors.<<

    Exactly. Walker is implementing my tagline with consistency. First GOP politician I’ve ever seen who takes it to them where it actually hurts them, in their pocketbooks.

    After four years of a Walker administration, all of the global warming alarmists feeding at the federal trough today will either be starving, or will be converted “skeptics.”

  • Studies Show When Government Is Skeptical About Climate Change, People Listen

    06/10/2015 9:07:42 AM PDT · 5 of 6
    Norseman to SeekAndFind

    Tragic? Maybe.

    But the point of the article is that when conservative leaders started taking strong public stands against the global warming alarmists and a carbon tax, the public was swayed away from the propaganda that’s been spewed for a couple of decades now.

    That’s encouraging, and it means that no Republican candidate for president should be nominated without having first taken a solid stand against such alarmism.

    Bush, for example, did the skeptics a huge disservice when he signed on to the global warming scam himself, in his second term. That action alone gave tremendous impetus to the alarmists. Had he done the opposite, and cut their government funding (as Walker, for example, will almost certainly do), we could be done with this fiasco by now.

    I mention Walker because his budget cuts the number of science positions in the WI DNR because they were investigating “climate change,” plus that’s how he operates; he cuts budgets of Leftists.

    Hopefully, other conservative candidates will have equally credible means of convincing us that they will not tolerate the amount of government funding being poured down this rat hole for the sole purpose of increasing control over our lives.

  • Scott Walker Strikes Again and Again

    06/10/2015 8:54:21 AM PDT · 23 of 58
    Norseman to The_Reader_David

    >>Do you actually think without tenure any of the academic climatologists or statisticians who are critical of the global warming hysteria would still have jobs?<<

    Yes, they would, and I’ll tell you why. The Left is so autocratic that they would, without tenure, get rid of every conservative professor on campus. That would degrade the value of the education delivered by that university in such an obvious manner that parents would aggressively seek alternatives.

    And you know where they’d find them? At the universities prescient enough to hire all those fired conservative professors, where, instead of living in fear of being harassed by a Title IX complaint, they would be able to again educate young minds.

    I get your point, but disagree with the end result.

    Besides, this is a change to state law, not a change to the tenure provisions of the university. WI is one of the few states that have protected tenure by state law. Clearly, that hasn’t resulted in a balanced university system, but rather has resulted in them moving further and further to the left over time, so get it out of state law and let the universities themselves work it out.

  • Scott Walker Drafts a Homeschooled Army

    06/09/2015 8:10:55 AM PDT · 10 of 15
    Norseman to Cincinatus' Wife

    It’s a little strange that she could write an article on Walker and homeschooling and not mention the fact that he’s proposing to dramatically expand the availability of vouchers across Wisconsin in his new budget.

    If it goes through, it will be a major breakthrough for voucher programs in the U.S. and will stand in stark contrast to the Obama administration’s (and Democrat’s generally) opposition to the Washington DC voucher program that many black families have relied upon.

    This could be an important key to making GOP inroads to the center-city black vote, by the way.

  • McDonald's names ex-Obama press secretary Robert Gibbs as global communications officer

    06/09/2015 7:50:46 AM PDT · 19 of 51
    Norseman to Oldeconomybuyer

    If the prospects for their bottom line are so bad they have to hire Gibbs to lie for them, I’d say that’s a sure short-sale recommendation.

  • Hillary Clinton moves left as Bernie Sanders picks up momentum

    06/08/2015 8:35:18 PM PDT · 8 of 23
    Norseman to Gator113

    >>Sanders or Clinton — what difference does it make.<<

    Sanders would probably lose 49 states to whomever the GOP runs, but his real impact is going to be driving Hillary out of the race. Then the scramble within the Dem Party will be on to field an alternative candidate who has a chance.

    The Dems have moved so far left under Pelosi, Reid, and Obama that the remaining base is enamored with Sanders. The irony is that the Progressives who run the Democrat Party think it’s the GOP that’s moved right. They have no idea how far they are to the left of the average voter, probably because the reporters covering them are right there with them on the far left.

  • WI Republicans fire scientists working on research related to climate change and polllution (sic)

    06/08/2015 1:22:19 PM PDT · 14 of 22
    Norseman to Cincinatus' Wife

    Re: My tagline: Defund the Left....completely!

    Thus far, Walker is the only Presidential candidate that gets it.

    The Left has thrown the kitchen sink at him and he caught it, reinstalled it, and is now watching the Left circle the drain as he withdraws the main source of their funding, our tax dollars.

    He gets it. But even more important, he’s been willing to act on it.

  • Hillary Losing Ground

    06/08/2015 9:11:45 AM PDT · 22 of 24
    Norseman to Kaslin

    Democrats are showing, in their support for Sanders in both public appearances and straw polls, that they themselves don’t want Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.

    Sanders won’t be the eventual nominee, but he could be the candidate that knocks Hillary out of the ball game.

  • Paul Ryan's new partner: Obama

    06/07/2015 10:44:53 AM PDT · 28 of 28
    Norseman to SkyPilot

    Elaborating just a bit: The fast track authority, which is what the current bill is about, is being confused/conflated with the treaty itself, which has indeed been worked upon for years apparently. While the treaty might presently contain many provisions that various parties find highly objectionable, passage of fast track authority won’t authorize the treaty itself. It just assures the the final treaty will be subjected to an up or down vote in Congress.