Muda69

Share all you want foxbat, just don't use the force of government to compel others to do that same.

New Zealand's Sweeping New Gun Ban Would Be Unconstitutional in the U.S.: http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/21/new-zealands-sweeping-new-gun-and-magazi

Democrats whining about the EC, Republicans whining about the EC. Just two sides of the same uni-party coin.

Looks pretty good in our neck of the mid-west: https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INTIPP7URN https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/INCLIN3URN And I don't understand your fascination with the word "sharing" when it comes to "American Prosperity". Can you please elaborate?

And exactly whose fault is that, foxbat? Is everybody supposed to share in that American Prosperity?

Nice self portrait, Gonzo. Didn't know you were an NHL fan. Go Red Wings.

http://reason.com/blog/2019/03/21/indiana-cops-pelted-teachers-with-airsof Two anonymous teachers confirmed what happened to the Indianapolis Star. "They told us, 'This is what happens if you just cower and do nothing," one of the teachers said. "They shot all of us across our backs. I was hit four times." The incident took place as part an active shooter training program called ALICE (Alert, Lockdown, Inform, Counter, Evacuate). It's a nationwide program, though it usually does not involve shooting teachers with pellet guns. County Sheriff Bill Brooks' office oversaw the training, though he couldn't go into specifics because he only took office that month and said he was not there when the airsoft guns were used. Still, Brooks offered a confusing defense of the practice to the Star. While seemingly refusing to confirm that teachers were shot at all, he also said the teachers "all knew they could be" because "it's a shooting exercise." "It's a soft, round projectile," he told Star of the plastic pellets used in the airsoft guns. "The key here is 'soft.'" The practice ended, he added, after a teacher complained. The ISTA went public with the allegations as part of an effort to amend a proposed school safety bill to clarify that teachers shouldn't be shot. It seems like a pretty reasonable demand. After all, it's hard to understand how shooting teachers with pellet guns makes anyone safer. Incidents like these highlight the oftentimes needless and extreme measures taken during active shooter drills. In 2014, Lenore Skenazy wrote for Reason about armed police who swarmed into a middle school in Florida without warning teachers or students that it was a drill: As Reason's Jesse Walker has argued, these sorts of overly realistic simulations don't prepare students and teachers for disasters as much as they pointlessly reenact past tragedies. They're also not terribly effective, as Erika Christakis has written in The Atlantic. The truth is, schools are actually relatively safe. School shootings are tragic, but thankfully, very rare. In fact, some research suggests schools might even be safer now than they were in the 1990s, as Robby Soave has pointed out. With that in mind, it's very hard to defend the kind of institutionalized self-harm that Indiana teachers say they were subjected to. As one of the comments to this story states:

You can't seem to answer my question as stated, foxbat. Yet more of your:

And Ms. Ocasio-Cortez's push for full on 'democratic' socialism is supposed to grow "American Prosperity", aka the middle class? Socialism kills prosperity, kills the middle class: https://townhall.com/columnists/johnhawkins/2014/02/25/5-ways-socialism-destroys-societies-n1800086

Sure you would have. Nice try:

FTA: I will be contacting my elected federal representative and senators, urging them to support Mr. Rubio in this endeavor.

*yawn* , got anything better than trotting out that old fact? Waiting for your details of how socialism could be "done right", and how it would eliminate poverty.

Unmediated mass democracy would lead to the serfdom of minority groups and the smallest, poorest states.: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/democrat-opposition-constitutional-order-electoral-college/ Excellent commentary by Mr. Williamson. What came first Dante, the states or the federal government? And your continued fascination with dead man is kind of disturbing. Why haven't you taught your strident belief in a United States King to your students yet?

Apparently neither can you find any pictures on facebook.com about it.

What Is The Purpose Of The Electoral College?: https://www.dailywire.com/news/44922/knowles-what-purpose-electoral-college-michael-j-knowles

Dangers of Growing Support for Court-Packing: http://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/20/dangers-of-growing-support-for-court-pac Similarly, Democratic Senator and presidential candidate Corey Booker "caution people about doing things that become a tit for tat throughout history... So when the Democrats expand it to 11, 12 judges, when Republicans have it, they expand it to 15 judges." Booker and Tribe are right. And indeed these sorts of structural concerns are exactly what led a Democratic-controlled Congress to bury Franklin D. Roosevelt's 1937 court-packing plan - the last serious attempt to expand the size of the Court in order to shift its ideology. Critics rightly feared that court-packing would create a Supreme Court subservient to whatever party controlled the presidency and Congress at the time. As Democratic Senator Burton Wheeler put it in a speech on FDR's plan: For what it is worth, my opposition to court-packing is is not limited to plans put forward by liberal Democrats. I first wrote about the subject when prominent conservative law professor Steven Calabresi and his coauthor Shams Hirji put forward a plan for Republicans to pack the lower federal courts back in 2017. It was a bad idea when raised by some on the right two years ago, and it's no better now when it is gathering steam on the left. Undermining judicial independence might be a feature of court-packing rather than a bug if you believe that judicial review does more harm than good, in any event (as do a few legal scholars on both the right and the left). Such people contend we would have a a freer and more just society if the courts let the political branches of government do as they please. I believe that is a dangerous delusion, for reasons I summarized here: Some liberals who value judicial review generally might believe that conservative judges will not act to curb the abuses of Trump and other Republican presidents. If so, it might be better to risk blowing up the judiciary than allow conservatives to continue to have a majority on the Supreme Court. It is indeed true that conservative judges have sometimes let Trump get away with violations of the Constitution, most notably in the egregious travel ban case. But conservative Republican judicial appointees (along with liberal Democratic ones) have done much to curb the administration's excesses in other important cases. Notable examples include the numerous rulings against Trump's attempts to coerce sanctuary cities, the recent Ninth Circuit decision against the administration's efforts to severely restrict migrants' opportunities to apply for asylum (authored by prominent conservative judge Jay Bybee), and a variety of decisions on such important issues as DACA, the administration's family-separation policy (struck down by a Republican-appointeed judge who ordered the administration to reunite the separated children with their families), and freedom of speech. If Trump had had a free hand to pack the courts as he likes, things would likely have been much worse. And the same goes for future presidents inclined to abuse their power. Some on the left argue that the Democrats can expand the size of the Court without generating retaliation in kind by Republicans if they repackage court-packing as "court balancing" or some other similar euphemism. This is unlikely to work, for reasons I discussed here. Those attracted to such ideas should consider whether they themselves would forego retaliation the GOP tried to pull a similar trick. Fortunately, the left is far from monolithic when it comes to court-packing. As the above quotes by Laurence Tribe and Corey Booker reveal, some liberals do recognize the danger. Other notable liberal critics of court-packing include former Obama White House Counsel Bob Bauer, columnist Damon Linker (who calls it "the dumbest Democratic idea yet") and well-known legal scholar Richard Primus. Whether Democrats actually move forward with court-packing the next time they have a chance to do so depends in large part on who becomes the next Democratic president and whether he or she decides to make this an important part of the party's agenda. Some Democrats are instead promoting other, far more defensible, reforms to the Supreme Court. For example, Corey Booker has called for imposing 18-year term limits on the justices. I have no problem with that idea, which enjoys widespread (though certainly not universal) support from legal scholars on different sides of the political spectrum, such as Sanford Levinson on the left, and Steve Calabresi on the right. It would limit the power of individual justices without giving the president and Congress a blank check to pack the Court as they like. Beto O'Rourke's plan to increase the size of the court to 15 justices (mentioned above) is far less problematic than standard court-packing proposals. Because it would require a balance between five Democratic and five Republican justices, with five more chosen by the first ten, it would not enable either the president or Congress to simply pack the Court with their own minions. There are, however, many practical problems with the plan. For example, it is not clear how the Democratic and Republican justices would be selected. In addition, if independents or third parties ever gain a significant foothold in Congress, they would be shut out of the judicial selection process. O'Rourke's proposal would also require a constitutional amendment to enact, which I think is highly unlikely to happen. On the other side of the political spectrum, GOP Senator Marco Rubio plans to propose a constitutional amendment limiting the Supreme Court's membership to nine justices, which would prevent future court-packing. I am happy to support any such amendment. But I doubt that it can get enacted without some sort of quid pro quo for the Democrats. If it were up to me, I would be willing to pay a price to remove the danger of court-packing forever. But most Republican politician probably think otherwise. For the moment, therefore, the main barrier to court-packing is the longstanding political norm against it. It has lasted for almost 150 years, and survived an assault by Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the most popular presidents in American history. The next Democratic president is unlikely to be as commanding a figure as FDR was. On the other hand, the Democratic Party is arguably more ideologically cohesive now than in the 1930s, and the relative youth of the conservative Supreme Court justices (combined with increased life expectancy) makes it less likely that the Democrats can quickly retake control of the Supreme Court by "natural" means in the near future, than was the case back in 1937. And we should not underestimate the risk that liberal anger over the Court could help generate a "crisis of legitimacy" at some point in the next few years, which in turn could pave the way for court-packing. Nonetheless, I am guardedly optimistic that court-packing can still be staved off. But that happy outcome is more likely the more people understand the gravity of the danger.

Yes, I was.

"A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned, this is the sum of good government.” - Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address

Please tell us in detail how socialism could be "done right", and how it would eliminate poverty.

Because the USA it is one of the largest countries in the world by land size, and it needed some way to be subdivided in increments. The states system came about due to the fact that the U.S. did not want a strong centralized government. By having a lose confederation to ensure there would be no more tyrants like the King of England controlling them.

Because you remove a large reason why we have geographical/social entities know as 'States'. As the opinion piece states:

The War on Red Caps Roars On: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/03/violence-against-trump-supporters-make-america-great-again-hats/

So you are contending there would be significantly less starving people under socialism?