DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Since there's so much talk about the Constitution on here...

You should find an article to back that up.

I already did, and you went to your typical response, which is to trash the source.

I didn't trash your source, I trashed your lack of research for only finding one that supported your misbegotten, uniformed opinion. I guess you didn't read what I said too deeply either, as it didn't support the opinion that was given to you by democratic talking points.

I can post tons of articles.

But you already gave yourself a get of jail free card, because you mentioned a typical think progress liberal article as something you won't consider.

You haven't considered it in the past either.

Every time I post an article, you question the source. So why bother running around in circles?

Do you even read your sources? Thinkprogress may as well be Pravda. That would be like me posting opinion from The Blaze or Limbaugh all the time.

I definitely disagree with that.

But see what I mean?

But, I've read and done my research, I stand by my argument.

Nice of you to tell me how I think (because you think you know all about me and "people like me"), but I happen to think that they are BOTH wrong. R' and D's are both full of crap and only interested in furthering their own agenda. Neither party cares about what is good for America or its people.

That's fine that you say that, but your posting history clearly shows you're a conservative.

Just like my post I history shows I'm liberal. So you can act all middle of the isle all you want, your history tells the story.

There's nothing wrong with that. It's what you believe in. Dunno why people try to fight what they believe in like its a bad thing. Just own it. I own my ideology, and I don't make excuses for it.

So anyways, to keep this discussion going

http://www.vox.com/2016/2/18/11058038/ted-cruz-court

I thought the whole thing with Ted Cruz was dead in the water, but clearly, thanks to trump, people are no questioning whether Cruz is eligible.


I would feel bad for Cruz, but since he also led the charge in the birther crap with Obama, no love lost for this guy.

And this is where we get into trouble, where arguments start, and where arguments ultimately break down. We associate political opinions with actual politicians...

Swish, I know you lean left in a lot of your views, not all, but most..

I lean right in most of my opinions, especially fiscal opinions, I have some social opinions that are much more moderate..

If we could talk about our opinions, the merits of our opinions, there could be some fine conversation on this board... but we can't. (and it's not just you and me, it's pretty much everybody) Because as soon as an opinion is brought up, political names are attached to it.

You could say something like.. "I think this country needs a more equitable tax structure and the wealthy probably should pay a little more." What's the response going to be? I'll tell you.. "Oh yea, you and your buddy Bernie the socialist are going to kill our economy." And the other side does it too.. somebody mentions lowering taxes and somebody on the left will IMMEDIATELY invoke the names of Reagan and or Bush... And since the guy on the right hates Bernie and the guy on the left hates Reagan, you have ZERO chance at having a reasonable conversation about taxes. We apply these labels every day to every article and it kills discussion...

As Eleanor Roosevelt once said, "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss other people." 99% of us in our threads get dragged into discussing the people.. and not the idea...

I can be conservative on some issues without being a Republican. Not everything is grouped and labeled like you like it to be or claim it is. If I were assigning a letter next to my name it would be an L.

Most of my opinions are decidedly conservative... I am pretty much disgusted with the Republican party.. so where does that put me?

Blue Dog Democrat?

Is it imperative that it has a name?

How else is one to judge you? We gots labels on our food too ya know!

Independent, where I believe most of us are. I don't vote for republicans because I like them, I vote for them because they tend not to raise my taxes to fund government run charity, and other reasons.

Independent??? So you are the guy that bought Pitts fence!

Not on meats


http://www.forbes.com/sites/nancyhuehner...k/#38cdfefd3fb3

Not at all. I might have donated to a charity of my choice that bought his fence, though.

It makes you an "Archist". You love awesomeness.

Since I've never received any help from a charity, you would be wrong.

I said, 'might', so I can't be wrong.

[sarcastic voice] Well of course you can't be.[/sarcastic voice]

so anyway, while you guys are busy brown nosing each other and giving high fives cause you think you're moderates:

i figured this was about a best place to put this without flooding the board with new threads

Oregon lawmakers approve landmark minimum wage increase

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/oregon-lawmakers-approve-landmark-minimum-093607406.html

Politics
Oregon lawmakers approve landmark minimum wage increase
Kristena Hansen, Associated Press,Associated Press 2 hours 13 minutes ago Comments Sign in to like Reblog on Tumblr Share Tweet Email

SALEM, Ore. (AP) -- Oregon lawmakers have approved landmark legislation that propels the state's minimum wage for all workers to the highest rank in the U.S., and does so through an unparalleled tiered system based on geography.

The measure passed the state House on Thursday and is headed to Democratic Gov. Kate Brown, who said in a statement she will sign it.

The move makes Oregon a trailblazer in the broader debate about minimum wage unfolding nationwide as the federal threshold remains unchanged from Great Recession levels.

Fourteen other states have raised their rates over the past two years. Another dozen or so are considering taking up the issue this year, either through legislative action or ballot initiative, as issues of wage inequality and middle-class incomes have climbed to the forefront of presidential campaigns by Democratic candidates Bernie Sanders and Hilary Clinton.

Oregon's plan imposes a series of gradual increases over six years. By 2022, the state's current $9.25 an hour minimum — already one of the highest in the nation — would climb to $14.75 in metro Portland, $13.50 in smaller cities such as Salem and Eugene, and $12.50 in rural communities.

Those minimums dethrone Massachusetts — where the statewide rate will climb to $11 an hour next year — from the top spot, according to the Economic Policy Institute, a D.C.-based think tank that tracks wage laws across the nation.

The measure was crafted as a compromise between what unions, businesses and farmers want and as an attempt to thwart more aggressive proposals that could go before voters in November. Those two proposals call for a statewide minimum of $13.50 or $15, and would be phased in over half the time. Labor unions have not yet indicated whether they'll follow through with ballot initiatives.

Other states that have boosted statewide minimums above $10 include California and Vermont. That stands in stark contrast to more conservative states such as Idaho, which has blocked previous efforts to raise its minimum beyond the federal level, and Arizona, where lawmakers are considering a bill that would block state funding to municipalities that set a local minimum wage.

While there are varying approaches to raising the minimum wage, the three-tiered regional system is uniquely Oregon's.

States have targeted wage hikes for government employees or certain industries, as seen recently in New York for fast-food workers, while others allow local jurisdictions to set their own rates above the state threshold, prompting recent hikes in cities such as Seattle and Los Angeles.

Oregon, however, would be the first state without a one-size-fits-all statewide minimum.

"Oregon has always been at the forefront of new ideas in the country. We were the first to actually have a minimum wage," said Rep. Paul Holvey, a Democrat from Eugene. "Trust me, we're not solving all the problems, but we are making a substantial dent in it by pushing up from the bottom some wage equality ... from the huge disparity we have in incomes."

The state is deeply divided between west and east by economic, cultural and political differences. The goal of the tiered approach is to balance the needs of the more urban west — where living costs have soared in rapidly growing Portland — and struggling farming communities in the east.

Division over the minimum wage — currently at $7.25 in federal law — is also often split along party lines and pits low-wage workers against business groups, as has been seen in Oregon this year. Republicans, the minority party in the Oregon Statehouse, have opposed the increase.

Barry Bushue, president of the Oregon Farm Bureau, said Thursday's vote shows Democrats don't value family agriculture.

"This enormous increase will force many family farmers to try to find ways to mechanize or transition away from labor-intensive products Oregon is known for, like apples, pears, milk and berries," Bushue said. "Unfortunately, some will give up and sell, while others will simply go out of business."

David Cooper, an economic analyst the Economic Policy Institute, said wage increases have never lead to widespread damaging effects, but he also expressed hesitation about Oregon's regional approach.

"I think any time you create these sorts of somewhat arbitrary geographic districts, that's when you can create opportunities for some sort of economic disruption," he said.

There is a difference between being an Independent and being a Moderate. A moderate is a person who resides somewhere near the middle on most issues... and Independent is a person who doesn't belong to a party.

I'm a conservative, I'm also an Independent because I don't like the republican party. I like most of the things the republican party says they stand for, I just don't like the way it functions...

I see what you did there..


So, if you live in Portland, you are getting an average increase of 8.1% per year, if you live in Salem you are getting an average increase of 6.5% per year, if you live in rural Oregon, you are getting an average increase of 5.15% per year.

So while it's a positive that it will go up as inflation goes up... if inflation is 4-5% per year, which is very possible... you are getting a small increase over just a standard COLA increase.. so if you are making $9.25/hour now and you are still making minimum wage in 2022.. the change in your standard of living will be barely noticeable.

Hey, breaking even is much better than going steadily backwards and a great many people oppose the poorest working people even breaking even.

I agree, that is the one positive in the plan is that it is going to be increasing incrementally for 5 years, which means people won't be falling farther and farther behind...

I just kind of wanted to show that this isn't some windfall of cash that a minimum wage worker is suddenly going to be able to support a family or 4...

And let's be honest, if you are making $9.25/hour now and 5 years from now you are STILL making minimum wage.. dude, you need to look in the mirror.

I agree with you. I have never been stalled at any wage before. Of course I went into construction and always applied myself so moving up the ranks didn't seem difficult to me.

However, I was more talking about entry level, younger employees. Not that it would be the same workers five years from now but the same cross section of workers having the same spending ability as those before them. I guess I should have made myself clearer on that.

Collision of elephants: Trump v. Apple

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/collision-of-elephants--trump-v--apple-212259781.html


Can the 2016 election get any more rambunctious? To the delight of journalists—and the chagrin of Serious People everywhere—the answer is yes.

Republican bomb-thrower Donald Trump has upped the ante on his insult-everybody campaign by calling for a boycott of Apple (AAPL). That’s right, the world’s most valuable company, and a beloved one, besides. Trump—fresh off a spat with the Pope—apparently feels he can poke anybody or anything at this point, and emerge victorious.

The underlying issue is a serious one. Apple is embroiled in a dispute with the Justice Department over an encrypted iPhone belonging to one of the shooters in the San Bernardino massacre of Dec. 2. The FBI is demanding that Apple develop technology to unlock the phone, so they can investigate information the shooter may have stored there. Apple CEO Tim Cook says that’s no easy task and doing so would set a precedent allowing hackers and crooks easier access to iPhones worldwide. Apple is contesting the FBI order in court, with an appeal set for Feb. 26. But further appeals could keep the matter in court for months.

Trump, with his genius for publicity, is playing the law-and-order card, in calling for Apple to do what the FBI wants. “Boycott Apple until such time as they give that information,” Trump said recently at a rally in South Carolina. “Apple should give up.” Trump, of course, also took to Twitter to affirm his position:

I use both iPhone & Samsung. If Apple doesn’t give info to authorities on the terrorists I’ll only be using Samsung until they give info.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 19, 2016 Boycott all Apple products until such time as Apple gives cellphone info to authorities regarding radical Islamic terrorist couple from Cal— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 19, 2016
Now, this is fascinating. Rarely does one famous brand confront another so pugnaciously, so we get to see how both of them shadowbox in the limelight. In Apple’s corner: The world’s most revered tech company, according to the latest annual rankings by Harris, with a “reputational” score of excellent. In Trump’s corner: a 38% favorable rating and the lead, for now, in the race for the Republican presidential nomination.

Those circumstances seem to favor Apple in a toe-to-toe matchup with Trump, especially since a boycott of Apple is sort of an absurd premise. There are something like 1 billion devices in consumer pockets running on Apple’s iOS software, and most people can’t live without their phone or tablet for more than a few moments. Besides, Cook says he’s sticking up for consumers by stiff-arming the feds (though not everybody believes that).


But public opinion seems split on the issue of whether Apple should comply with the FBI, especially since nobody really cares about the privacy of a terrorist sympathetic to ISIS who murdered 14 civilians at an office party. The FBI also seems to be banking that public opinion will swing around to its view; it bypassed many other chances to challenge Apple on encryption on phones used by alleged criminals, apparently waiting for an ideal case. The stars may have aligned, making the San Bernardino case the strongest the FBI could have hoped for.

Trump has called for boycotts before. He tried to gin up a Macy’s (M) boycott after the retailer dropped his product line last year. And he tried to round up conservatives last year to boycott Starbucks (SBUX) when the coffee chain wasn’t sufficiently reverent toward the religious origins of Christmas. Both efforts fizzled.

His criticism of Apple may land harder, because it’s a much bigger issue. Here’s my prediction: Apple is going to cave, and find a way to unlock the San Bernardino phone so the FBI can have a look. Not because Trump said they should, but because public opinion is going to shift in favor of the FBI as the case gains more notoriety and more people realize what’s at stake. The company will also decide a long series of legal appeals are more trouble than they’re worth, especially if there’s a chance of losing in the end. Apple, after all, is a consumer products company, and it has edged away from hard-line policies before when consumers have edged it along. That’s one reason it tightened up the security of its phones in the first place.

Trump will undoubtedly claim credit if Apple accedes to the FBI. He won’t deserve it. But we should acknowledge his deft ability to sense where public opinion is heading before it actually gets there. Apple should, too.

Rick Newman’s latest book is Liberty for All: A Manifesto for Reclaiming Financial and Political Freedom. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.

I think Trump is joking or at least I hope to God he is. Yes, boycott a company that earns 230 billion in revenue. I'm sure they're terrified.

I was amazed while watching Trump talking about how he opposed the Iraq War, while being faced with video of him supporting the war at the time.

I was just stunned, as he denied what the video showed. It was like he called himself a liar. lol

He may have been better off not going to the SC debate to be honest. Going in to a state and trashing a former President who has an over 80% approval rating there probably isn't a good idea. lol

The Dems like to forget their own history and ignore the fact that they supplied the votes and authority to go to war. If anyone should be blamed for us getting in to an "unjust" war, it should be them. Bush could have said he wanted to invade Mars, but wouldn't have been able to do it without their consent. If it was the wrong thing to do, their JOB was to keep it from happening. And they didn't.

Oh, and Trump can take his BS 9/11 card and cram it... I'm so tired of that.

you also forget that emotions was still riding high throughout the entire country, not just the government. and at the time, we believed was bush said there was no reason not to.

wasn't until later that we found out the intelligence was a joke, there were no WMDs.

I saw the same tape. He apparently was for the first war and opposed to the second. Gotta watch the Press more than you watch the candidates these days.

Oh, I know emotions were riding high... mine were too. I was in my early 20's at that time so for me 9/11 has always been a "where were you when..." point in history for me.

I also remember that there was some question as to the intel that Colin Powell was presenting to Congress and the U.N. People didn't just accept what Bush was putting out there just because he said so. There were other credible intel agencies such as the Brits and the Israelis who were saying the same things. Hell, even Saddam himself was claiming he had them and was threatening to use them as U.S. forces closed in on Baghdad.

In the end there were chemical munitions found, just not in the quantities that were believed to exist. One of the theories that was put out there was that the Iraqi's were constantly changing the location of the weapons to avoid the U.N. inspectors. Saddam actually thought he had those weapons and was surprised he didn't. It was believed at that time that the weapons had made their way in to Syria. How true that is I don't know, but the chemical weapons Assad has used have had to come from somewhere right?