Muda69

New York Times Proves Once And For All That It Takes Marching Orders From The Liberal Elite: https://www.dailywire.com/news/50281/curl-new-york-times-proves-once-and-all-it-takes-joseph-curl 19K people are talking about this Sen. Cory Booker, another 2020 hopeful, wrote: "Lives literally depend on you doing better, NYT. Please do," as he retweeted the same Silver post. "Hey, @nytimes — what happened to “The Truth Is Worth It?” Not the truth. Not worth it," wrote New York mayor and 2020 candidate Bill deBlasio. "That’s not what happened," said candidate Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand. And newcomer Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the Democratic socialist the Democratic National Committee chairman called "the future of the party," followed suit. "Let this front page serve as a reminder of how white supremacy is aided by - and often relies upon - the cowardice of mainstream institutions," she wrote on Twitter. 31.9K people are talking about this So (are you sitting down?) the New York Times CHANGED ITS HEADLINE. For its second edition, out was the clear and concise headline encapsulating the essence of Trump's comments. In was a new one blasting him as weak and spineless on guns. And forget all those calls for unity versus racism. "ASSAILING HATE BUT NOT GUNS" read the new headline. Silver praised the Times for making the change: "FWIW (certainly better to do this than not IMO) they changed their headline between the 1st and 2nd print edition," he wrote on Twitter. So there it is: Definitive proof that The New York Times takes its marching orders from the liberal elite in the Democratic Party. "All the News That's Fit to Print" indeed.

By all means, regale us with stories of your practiced prowess with firearms, against multiple moving targets. And the bb gun sideshow stand at the Hamilton county fair doesn't count.

Does 'Common Sense Gun Safety Legislation' Make Sense As a Response to the El Paso and Dayton Shootings?: https://reason.com/2019/08/05/does-common-sense-gun-safety-legislation-make-sense-as-a-response-to-the-el-paso-and-dayton-shootings/

These items will still be produced and sold on the black market, much like drugs. What is that saying "If bump stocks are outlawed............... "

Yes, good for this young man. That said, what exactly do you want regarding taxpayers funds and private/parochial/charter schools Irishman? Do you want these private/parochial/charter schools to change their admission standards and hiring/firing processes to 100% match those of their government school counterparts or do you want to revoke the taxpayer funds from going to these institutions altogether?

Brebeuf Jesuit appeals split with Catholic Church, barred from holding all-school Mass: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/education/2019/08/05/brebeuf-jesuit-appeals-split-catholic-church-barred-holding-mass/1920187001/ The Jesuits aren't giving up the fight.

Everyone Has a Right to Call Politicians "Idiots" …: https://reason.com/2019/08/03/everyone-has-a-right-to-call-politicians-idiots/ 13.1K people are talking about this No, calling politicians idiots or "Four Horsemen [of the Apocalypse]" isn't "inciting violence" or "encouraging gun violence." It is urging people to dislike the politicians—a basic right of every American. That's so when people criticize President Trump or the Republican Congressional leadership or the left wing of the Democratic party or anyone else. It's so regardless of what groups those politicians belong to. It's true that some tiny percentage of listeners may react to such criticism by deciding to violently attack its targets, whether the targets are on the Left or on the Right. But one basic premise of free speech isn't that we don't treat speech as "inciting violence" (a label for constitutionally unprotected speech, see Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)), and suppress its communication to the 99.9999% of people who don't act violently because of it, just because of a risk that 0.0001% would act violently. And that's so even for much harsher speech, such as calling people traitors or fascists or other such labels that some might see as morally justifying attacks. It is even more clearly true of simply calling them idiots or "Four Horsemen" (for a famous earlier Four Horsemen reference, see here). That's true, I think, not just a matter of law but also of political ethics: There's no basis for morally condemning such speech as supposedly "inciting violence." (One might mildly condemn it as being nonsubstantive, but that condemnation would of course apply to a vast range of common criticism, and of common praise, of political figures from both sides.) It most certainly does not "NEED[] TO COME DOWN." Reps. Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, and Ayanna Pressley have set themselves up as leaders of the left wing of the Democratic Party. They have achieved national prominence, not just individually but as a group. In my view, their policies and views merit criticism; but even if you agree with them, surely others have a right to disagree. People have a right to criticize them as a group and not just individually. People have a right to continue to criticize them even when the politicians had gotten threats from third parties (as Omar, Tlaib, and Ocasio-Cortez, and Pressley reportedly have, and as I'm sure many other politicians have as well). People have a right to criticize them disrespectfully and not just respectfully. They have a right to criticize them with slogans and not just substantively, again just as they do with President Trump or Republican Congressional leaders or anyone else. And of course they have a right to call them "idiots." UPDATE: I revised the post slightly to make clear that my analysis applies just as much to calling people "The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse" as "idiots." UPDATE: Some people seem to think that this speech becomes incitement of violence because it's a gun store that puts it up, presumably because somehow viewers of gun store advertising are particularly likely to buy a gun and shoot a politician because she was called an "idiot" (and, obviously hyperbolically, an idiotic Horseman of the Apocalypse). No: Calling a politician an idiot, whether it's on a gun store billboard or anywhere else, isn't incitement of violence, whether as a legal or as a moral matter. It's criticism, and one of the fundamental rights of free citizens. Note also the implications of that sort of argument: If this sort of criticism becomes illegal or immoral when a gun store says it, surely the same must be even more so as to gun rights advocacy groups (which tend to have much more public stature than ordinary gun stores). Presumably it would be as to prominent gun rights advocates, too. And if something like "idiot" is "inciting violence" in that context, then of course most other criticisms would qualify. (Indeed, criticizing a politician as advocating bad policies would be slightly more likely to encourage violence than criticizing them for being "idiots," not that either likelihood is substantial enough to warrant condemning the criticism.) What a convenient way for politicians and advocates to try to suppress criticism that comes from their political adversaries.

https://reason.com/2019/08/02/the-city-wants-to-force-this-familys-eviction-from-their-home-because-their-guest-committed-a-crime-they-didnt-know-about-somewhere-else/ This law appears to have been enacted primarily to combat drug trafficking and so-called 'drug houses'. Yet when it comes to government and law enforcement overreach the law of unintended consequences rears its head once again.

Nowhere to go but up after an 0-10 outing in 2018 I guess. I hope the 'athletes' step up when you are outscored 513-54 over the course of 10 games. Good luck to the Hot Dogs in 2019.

Both.

Interesting statement from somebody living in the original Sin City.................

You know what that means: Skynet.

Please elaborate, concerning the national debt and the uni-party.

Exactly. That is one field that probably will see large growth.

Fiscal Conservatism Is Dead. Republicans Killed It.: https://www.dailywire.com/news/50152/hammer-fiscal-conservatism-dead-republicans-killed-josh-hammer Uni-party.

So, You Want Canadian Health Care?: https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/08/democratic-candidates-health-care-plans-canadian-system/ No rational, principled individual in the United State of America would want the Canadian system.

More government mandated minimum wage fallout: Robots Ready to Scoop Ice Cream Jobs: https://mises.org/wire/robots-ready-scoop-ice-cream-jobs As an aside several months ago my employer installed one of those Reis & Irvy’s soft serve kiosks in one of their cafeterias. It has been broken down more than it has been working.

Neighborhood Activists Would Rather Preserve Tom's Diner Than Let Its Owner Retire in Peace: https://reason.com/2019/08/01/neighborhood-activists-would-rather-preserve-toms-diner-than-let-its-owner-retire-in-peace/#comments So none of us really own our property? Is this a principle that our country was founded on? If the activists are so hell bent on preserving Mr. Messina's property they should pay him fair market value for it and then find someone else to manage the business. $4.8 millions sounds about right.

Modern Progressive thought:

https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/THP_KleinerDiscPaper_final.pdf People who insist on official assurances that their barber isn't lethally incompetent might take heart from a Brookings proposal that voluntary certification of professional skills could replace licensing. Those who want to see a piece of paper could go to certified providers. The rest of us could take our chances with businesses we trust through experience and reputation. Personal responsibility in the marketplace. Imagine that!

https://mises.org/wire/united-states-not-nation-problem-national-conservatism Fantastic essay. Agree on all of Mr. Mendenhall's points.

Forget Paying for Medicare for All—We Can't Pay for the Medicare We Have: https://reason.com/2019/02/22/medicare-for-all-cost-m4a-debt-bernie/ They want to make it worse because they can still kick the can down the road, to our children and grandchildren. They won't be in politics anymore when the day of reckoning finally comes.

Not really. There are now competing studies out there, each with probably it's own biases. Which one to believe is up to the individual. And of course this study hedges it's bets to a degree: FTS:

Yes, please.