Muda69

I never said I did. Nice flip-flop by young Mr. Wethington. Open enrollment legislation working as intended?

https://mises.org/wire/why-its-so-hard-escape-americas-anti-poverty-programs Fantastic analysis by Mr. Murray. Liberals, and government in general, want individuals to be dependent on government programs for their survival. It helps to justify their existence in some twisted way.

Joe Biden Is Happy To Talk About Michael Bloomberg's Stop-and-Frisk Record Because It Distracts From His Own Terrible Crime Policies: https://reason.com/2020/02/19/joe-biden-is-happy-to-talk-about-michael-bloombergs-stop-and-frisk-record-because-it-distracts-from-his-own-terrible-crime-policies/

You didn't answer the question. No friend, those are you actions in this thread, not mine. Why you choose to obfuscate, dodge, and dive instead of actually typing out what you want to say is beyond me.

Just keep spinning, spinning, spinning......................

Not confused at all foxbat. You made a statement I believe was false or at the very least pointed to you misinterpreting DT's statements, hence my simple request for links or citations so we could all be on the same page as to what was said. Sorry if you believe these are "high school debate shtick tactics" but I'm just a marching moron compared to your great intelligence and experience concerning "real" debate tactics. Yep. Sorry if it tarnished your image here on the GID. Honestly co-op football programs, like currently deployed in Illinois, would IMHO be a better option than 8 man tackle football.

The Socialist Delusions of Bernie Sanders: https://reason.com/2020/02/19/the-socialist-delusions-of-bernie-sanders/

Again, run a way from what exactly, XStar? At least have the courage to actually spit out what you are trying to say. Or are the words too big for you to type and spell?

Hmm. Not exactly what I expected from one of the GID's cognoscenti, not being able to back up their statements with verifiable facts. Very reactionary.

Citations and links please.

Thank you for finally answering my question in a direct and succinct matter. Have a nice day. I wish I knew what I was wrong about since I never put forward any sort of hypothesis or accusation.

https://www.jconline.com/story/news/2020/02/18/indiana-beach-amusement-park-closing-rides-being-dismantled-after-nearly-100-years/4799522002/ What a sad day. Indiana Beach was an Indiana institution, and I have fond memories of summer days spent there.

Doesn't really answer my question. "Webo kids" is a little vague and the "at least one parent" comment is effectively meaningless. A child currently living within the Lebanon city limits who attends Western Boone Senior High School and has a parent who also attended Western Boone Senior High School as a youth would also be classified as a "Webo kid", would they not?

Does South Park Encourage Political Apathy and Moral Superiority?: https://reason.com/2020/02/18/does-south-park-encourage-political-apathy-and-moral-superiority/ Schwartz argues that South Park traffics in moral relativism, or perhaps a form of ideological nihilism, because she believes its core message is "the only correct thing is to do nothing." In her tweets on the topic, she admits in passing that she hasn't "been watching the show in recent seasons," which helps to explain why her critique is so wide of the mark. In the early days of the show, critics were already deriding the show as "dangerous to democracy" and "vile trash" that poisoned young viewers' minds. But as Barry Fagin wrote back in 2000 for Reason, the show was "loaded with moral content" and taught his then-10 and 12 years old kids valuable lessons, including "it's good to make fun of people who believe stupid things," "it's good to make fun of hypocrisy," and "things that happen in cartoons aren't real." That last point was particularly important in the 1990s, when both liberals and conservatives were desperately trying to control the information explosion that came along with cable television and the internet. By representing the need for critical consumption of both expertise and information, South Park, like other shows that helped define the '90s (think The Simpsons, Beavis and Butt-Head, and Mystery Science Theater 3000) helped to develop media literacy in millions of viewers. I'd go further still and underscore that South Park teaches at least three basic lessons in virtually every episode. The first is that people in authority need to earn our respect rather than assume it. The second is that cultural, moral, and political diversity is both the real state of nature and can only be sustained through honest and open discussion about our differences. The third is that personal responsibility is the key to a flourishing society and the foundation of positive communal action. These points are summarized in this brief video from 2013: At one point in her tweetstorm about South Park, Schwartz writes, "To be clear, I don't blame the show itself as much as I do the generation of boys who internalized it into their personalities. Which maybe isn't the show's fault!" There's no question audiences have a mind of their own and consumers of a given text routinely (and legitimately) interpret that text in ways that confound its creator's intentions. So it's possible that rather than create an audience that is smarter and more skeptical of information and power, South Park has instead simply created an army of douchebros who act more like Cartman rather than Stan or Kyle. But since South Park first aired back in 1997, the country has become vastly more tolerant toward all sorts of marginalized people and causes and no view of the show could miss what side its creators are on when it comes to out-groups ranging from immigrants to trans people to Mormons. We may indeed be more vulgar as a society, but we're also generally more tolerant and engaged too (the youth vote for the 2018 midterms was the highest in decades). South Park might not deserve much or even any of the credit, but it doesn't deserve any of the blame either. .... As one of the comments to this story states: "The essence of her complaint is that, ignoring pretty much the rest of any political satire on television, South Park dares to question leftist shibboleths. The possibility that young people might be exposed to the idea that progressive dogma is just something people like this find totally unacceptable. Young people have to be taught to only think things approved by the collective, after all!"

One is curious: Are all these OMG! Athletes currently attending Western Boone Senior High School native born sons of Sugar Creek, Washington, Clinton, Jefferson, Jackson or Harrison townships in Boone County? Or has Dover been blessed with a few courtesy of open enrollment legislation? After all Webo hasn't been shy over the past several years in advertising itself as the bees-knees in government school education: https://www.weboschools.org

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/02/saving-higher-education-student-constitutional-rights-truth-in-lending-standards/ Agree on most of Mr. Hanson's points. Higher education needs to change, and change quickly.

Yes it is. Interesting connection that the researchers could be using strains of Coronavirus for deploying this nanotechnology in animals.

https://apnews.com/d65e98062be130ceeb73a2581cc21d3f A sad day, but most individuals working for and volunteering within the organization knew this was a foregone conclusion. If the assets of the local Scout Councils are brought into this bankruptcy filing it will most likely be the death knell of the BSA. Many councils will fold, and even the larger more financially secure councils will have to make significant cutbacks, sell properties, and raise fees, which many families simply can no longer afford. National BSA website concerning the bankruptcy: https://www.bsarestructuring.org/

This is kind of amusing: https://preview.redd.it/ijulc4abjhh41.gif?format=mp4&s=3d1aa70abf29fa63f4d7c243735e6d342655e115

Hmm, the common definition I see for the word "voluntary" is "done, given, or acting of one's own free will." I wonder how much "free will" an accused believes he or she actually has while being interviewed/pressed/grilled/given the third-degree by law enforcement and prosecutors.

So you disagree with this statement:

https://www.cato.org/events/coercive-plea-bargaining

https://mises.org/wire/social-security-terrible-investment Still, Social Security officials defended the program as comprehensive. They said it is more than just retirement income. “Rates of return on Social Security are complicated because these benefits include disability and survivors protection as well as CPI-indexed life annuities for retirees, something not offered in the commercial market,” according to Stephen Goss, Social Security chief actuary. “The value of such insurance protection,” he adds, “goes beyond just the average benefit payments, as indicated by the premiums charged for commercial insurance.” Goss argues that accumulation in private accounts “can vary widely based on timing and investment choices. As a result, serious proposals for providing some portion of Social Security protection in the form of individual accounts have generally provided some form of guaranteed return to eliminate the prospect that some individuals will have poor experience.” Social Security itself, of course, should never be confused with a real trust fund, or a real saving or investment program, as can be seen in the program's dicey trust fund accounting identified by economist Murray Rothbard about a half century ago: A Program in Trouble But beyond the debate over private accounts, almost everyone agrees on this: the current Social Security system is in the red—today more is paid out than is paid in, a deficit that is expected to get worse as people live longer and birthrates decline—and Congress must act over the next fifteen years. Benefits must either be reduced or taxes raised again, or the system’s two trust funds will reduce payments by about a quarter. The Social Security Trustees project that the retirement and disability funds, “will be depleted in 2035.” Goss, in a sentiment shared by Social Security critics, says, “Congress must act.” Social Security’s returns, taxes, and benefits have been much debated, especially over the last fifty years as the program has gone through numerous crises. Taxes have been raised and benefits cut several times. The problem of how to fund Social Security has persisted over decades. Both Presidents Carter and Reagan, in the 1970s and 1980s, respectively, signed Social Security reform packages that called for higher taxes and benefit cuts. Carter said his package would make the system “sound.” Reagan said his changes would “protect the financial integrity of Social Security.” Neither happened. William “Tip” O’Neill, a former speaker of the House of Representatives and a key player in the Social Security debates of the 1970s and 1980s, hardly touches on them in his book “Man of the House,” except to say how he and his allies prevented benefit cuts. They didn’t. And more are likely on the horizon. These failed Social Security solutions resulted in the shaky finances of the current system. However, sometimes in its history Social Security has been billions of dollars in the black. But that money was never used to shore up the program. Instead, Greszler says, the extra revenue "allowed governments to spend a lot more on other things.” Stealing from Peter to pay Paul, it's the way of the government. Social Security needs to end, and end now.

How Much More Should Trump Be Spending on You?: https://reason.com/2020/02/16/how-much-more-should-trump-be-spending-on-you/ As Parlapiano and Bui mention in their Times article, virtually all of the new spending since 2016 is being financed through borrowed money. We're spending $1,441 more per person while federal revenues have increased by just $125 per person. That explains why, despite booking the highest per person revenues in over 50 years, the national debt continues to grow. One thing both right-wing and left-wing economists agree on is that persistent, high levels of debt correlate strongly with reduced economic growth, which helps explain sluggish growth for all of the 21st century in the United States. As it happens, President Trump recently released his budget proposal for fiscal year 2021. The president's proposal isn't binding in any way. It's really just a suggestion to Congress and an announcement of his priorities. If he got his druthers, he would spend $4.83 trillion, up from an estimated $4.79 trillion this year and an actual $4.45 trillion in 2019 (see table S-1 in his proposal). As important, all of his Democratic challengers are promising even-bigger increases in spending over the coming years and it's likely that whoever ends up winning this fall, the federal budget for 2021 will be bigger than whatever exact amount we end up spending this year. Especially in an election year, we really should be talking about increases in federal spending and national debt and their relationship to economic growth. At the very least, we should be acknowledging what the Times has discovered, hiding right there in plain sight: We are spending far more per person than we were in 2016. And we should be asking everybody who wants to be president: What do we have to show for that extra $1,441? Personally I have nothing to show for that extra $.

So an impartial jury is present when law enforcement and prosecutors are interviewing/pressing/grilling/third-degreeing a suspect for a plea bargain or confession?