Molenir comments

Posted in: Cruz drops out of GOP race after Indiana loss to Trump See in context

I truly cannot stand Clinton. She has no qualifications to be President, and given her downright criminal past, while Sec of State, shouldn't be nominated, but she will be.

Trump is disgusting. He's a nutcase. I'm a Republican, and there is no way in hell I'll vote for him.

So, the Criminal, or the nutcase. Think I'm either going to sit this out, or vote for the Libertarian candidate, if there is one on the ballot.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Posted in: Can 'The Force Awakens' become the biggest movie ever? See in context

My plan is to wait until a bunch of people I trust go see the movie, get their opinion on whether this is an improvement on the Prequels. Not gonna bother unless it is outstanding.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Women forced into prostitution in WW2 hope for apology from Japan See in context

In other news, survivors of Germany's Nazi Death camps likewise hope for an apology from Germany...

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Posted in: More than 400 arrested as Ferguson protests spread to other U.S. cities See in context

Title on the article is wrong. Many of these are not protests, they are riots. Difference is between whether violence or property damage is occurring or not. Since it is, its a riot, not a protest. Protests did occur, but a lot of rioting went on as well.

9 ( +13 / -4 )

Posted in: Obama to unveil plan to fix 'broken' U.S. immigration laws See in context

This is just fearmongering nonsense, the president has the power to make exective actions all presidents make executive actions. Acting like Obama is being a monarch when he does executive actions is just playing on the fears of people who don't understand who has what powers in American government

The laws in this case are explicit. What Obama is doing, directly contradicts the law. No other way around it. These people are required to be deported. His executive action requires agents of the federal government, to violate the law. Thus, its not fear mongering nonsense. This is a President who by executive action, is rewriting the law to suit his desires. Ignoring the actual law, and the will of the people.

Congress could have acted before, to amend what many people consider a broken immigration system. However they chose not to. This does not in any way give the President the right to change the laws himself. I guess I'm looking forward to the next President deciding that since Obamacare is hurting people, he will by executive action refuse to carry out that law. Regardless of whether its the "law of the land."

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama to unveil plan to fix 'broken' U.S. immigration laws See in context

So the president will act. As I mentioned above, if the GOP is unhappy with this, come January, they will be in a very good position to legislate a permanent solution more to their liking.

@Laguna: Do you understand how the government works? The CONGRESS passes the law. The President can veto that law, but if that veto is overridden, he then is required to execute the law, regradless of whether or not he likes it. The same is true for all laws on the books when he is elected. He doesn't have discretion about whether or not he will carry out a law. What you and others seem to be saying, is that if the President gets fed up with congress not passing the laws he wants, he can simply decide not to enforce them. Rather like he has been doing already with Obamacare. You are saying, that unlike everyone else, the law does not apply to him, if he doesn't want it to. Everyone else, sure, but not him. This action should Terrify everyone. Regardless of whether or not you think the immigration system is broken. Thats not what this is about. Its about the seizure of power that no president in history has ever had. That the media, and the Dems seem willing to blithely ignore this does not make it any less serious.

Imagine 2 years from now, when America elects a new President, that that President decides that he doesn't like the new immigration law either, but instead decides he is going to deport all these people. Whats to stop him? Suppose he decides he doesn't like the EPA. Or for that matter Obamacare. You and others have been loudly proclaiming that we have to put up with it, because it is the Law of the Land. Well, so are the immigration laws. But you don't seem to care about those laws being ignored. So the new president declaring Obamacare null and void the day he is sworn in, should therefore not bother you in the slightest.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Obama to unveil plan to fix 'broken' U.S. immigration laws See in context

Obama has gone out of his way to emphasize that he would prefer Congressional action to Executive. He has noted repeatedly that his action could and would be superseded by Congressional legislation, should any come. That caveat is key. If the GOP is so vehemently against a presidential executive action on immigration, they do not need to file lawsuits or threaten to impeach; all they have to do is to pass legislation to solve the problem.

I don't like the law, so I'm going to change it. If you guys pass a law that I agree with, then thats ok. In the meantime, we'll do this...

How is this the GOPs fault? If the GOP doesn't like a law, they are not in any way obligated to pass one, merely because the President wants it. Thats one of the checks on government power the framers of the constitution put in. If the President has his little tantrum, and decides since the Republicans won't pass the law he wants, he will simply by executive fiat, change the law, this means, he is in fact claiming Imperial powers.

Tell you what, 2 years from now, the American people, decide to change things up, and put a Republican president in office. Oh, but the dems sucker then into giving them back control of congress. The new Republican president, under a Dem congress can now simply undo Obamas idiotic actions, and according to what some posters here are saying, simply by executive order, carry out, or not carry out laws passed by congress. So, lets say he doesn't like the EPA. Stroke of his pen, the EPA will no longer carry out any enforcement or oversight actions... So, still ok with the Presidents unconstitutional usurpation of powers? Tax code? Only the poor pay, the rich, and of course, the Dems now have to pay taxes, the Republicans don't. Name a policy you love, or don't love. The President, according to what you are saying, can now simply decide whether or not he wants to carry it out.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Republicans vow EPA fight as Obama touts China climate deal See in context

First of all, I view any allegation that a technical directive to control the level of greenhouse gas emission is guaranteed to do "massive damage to our economy" or put "millions of people out of work" to be the sure sign of a real Chicken Little. I never underestimate the ingenuity and creativity of a person when reasonable limits are imposed.

Its already happened. Tens of thousands of people have lost their jobs in the US because of Obamas war on coal. This is both directly, coal miners, and indirectly, businesses forced to shutter because coal mines are no longer producing. There is a reason why West Virginia flipped to Republican, why Kentucky wasn't close, and why the Dems almost lost Virginia. These are states that are directly effected, and they made their voices heard.

Secondly, global climate change is a moral issue. If the vast majority of the scientific community is correct, this is going to represent a very serious issue for our children and grandchildren. The message by the Chicken Littles is: our current economy -- our current level of comforts and waste -- is more important than your future.

I agree, it is a moral issue. But from a different vantage point. Is it moral to cost so many people their jobs, hurting them, and their families, in order to protect them from a nebulous threat? Not if you ask them. Previously, the American dream was that if you worked hard, you had a chance to make good, for you and your family. The explosion of the middle class, explemplified this. Obamas policies however, are preventing this upward mobility, shrinking the middle class, and making it difficult to succeed in todays economy. Moral? I don't think so. Thats the real consequences of what Obama has done, without any congressional support.

Since you seem to be in favor of throwing trillions into preventing unproven, disaster scenarios, how about a different one. Right now, there is absolutely nothing we could do, if an comet was on a collision course with the Earth. We know they have hit in the past, and thus, will hit again in the future. So naturally, you would support spending trillions of dollars to put weapons into orbit to protect the earth, right? After all, just cause we don't know when it will happen, or if the weapons we put into place will work, or if they might do some harm to people on the ground, that doesn't matter right? Based on your previous comments, I would argue that this is merely an extension of that line of reasoning.

For the record, I don't support this either. Though I do think we should have people look into this. And considering the billions being spent on climate change, a couple million to fund the SETI skywatch program seems pretty reasonable.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama warns Asia over territorial disputes See in context

Obama may be a rock star in Brisbane. He will be a lame duck president in US Senate which will be controlled by conservatives. If there is no single budget passed, how can he govern US of A let alone lecturing Aussies and Asians, He is a yesterday man before his term has completed. All talks and no solution. Sayonara Obama!

Umm, a little off topic, but there hasn't been a budget passed in 4 years. Ever since Republicans took over the House, Harry Reid has been afraid to even address it. 4 years, and Harry Reid wouldn't bring a budget up for a vote in the Senate. Instead they've gotten by with continuing resolutions. An actual budget would be a nice change, regardless of whether or not Obama signs it.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: Republicans vow EPA fight as Obama touts China climate deal See in context

Blithe disregard and excuses for doing nothing because the deniers have influenced the wishy-washy to sit on the fence -- demanding more research -- isn't going to cut it. That is not caution, but sheer recklessness. There's a clock that's ticking and plenty of research that has been completed already and has signaled warning alarms.

This is where Yabits goes a little crazy, and where even open minded people often do a double take. You want to spend trillions of dollars, and do masssive damage to our economy, putting millions of people out of work, in the hopes that it might prevent, something which may or may not happen, and which we may, or may not have any control over, regardless of our expenses. The cure, is worse then the disease!

I'm all for more study. I am not for massive disruption to the economy, in the name of preventing something over which we may or may not have any control. I don't see the point, particularly when none of the models showing doom, and gloom are accurate, and when despite all the hysteria, there hasn't been any uptick in disastrous storms. And finally, when the very proponents of climate change, cannot yet account for why the earth is cooling, and yet they refuse to admit that the Sun, which accounts for 99% of all the warming, could potentially have more impact then people. Due caution says do more research. It also says don't waste money and disrupt the economy when there simply isn't enough proof one way or another.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Republicans vow EPA fight as Obama touts China climate deal See in context

yabits

With the stakes and consequences so high, wouldn't the intelligent thing to do be to proceed with due caution? Wouldn't the moronic thing to do be to move ahead blindly, business as usual, pretending there's no problem -- that all of these intelligent scientists who've studied the issue are all wrong?

I agree with the statement here. There may indeed be global warming happening. And mankind may indeed be the cause of it. There really isn't enough evidence to prove it conclusively one way or another. Prceeding with due caution makes a lot of sense. The idea of spending trillions of dollars to prevent it, when we are not even sure we are the cause of it or not, or whether or not we can even have a significant impact on it, if we are, seems ludicrous. Doing more research, having scientists build a climate model, that is actually correct, (something they have been unable to do thus far.) All seem like a good choices. Keep researching the subject. Taking away the religious aspects of climate science, and returning it to scientific principles. All seem like a good plan for this issue. Running around like chicken little, screaming about how the sky is falling, does not.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Obama wants more regulation of Internet providers See in context

Let's assume these internet providers get their way. Here is how a lack of neutrality would apply to your fuel station analogy: Your gas station has 16 pumps, and you'll have the choice to spend 30 minutes at the pump (after waiting in line) because the fuel company has decided that the "regular" price pumps will deliver product/content at that rate. Or, if you want to fill up in less than five minutes, you'll have to go over to one of the four premium-priced pumps. (Maybe you're in a hurry, or you have a service -- like a taxi -- that depends on being able to fuel expeditiously.)

Lets extend your analogy further Yabits. So, your gas station, or ISP decides to do exactly this. However the gas station down the street, charges around the same price for gas, but has no 'premium' pumps, and no waiting lines. Which gas station do you think will get more business? Thats essentially whats been happening now. Additionally, the threat of, and occasional government intervention has effectively kept ISPs from colluding to fix or set speeds or prices.

Getting back to the internet. Whats wrong with people paying more for higher speeds? ISPs are a business, making money is what they are for. If they want to give premium service to people who pay extra, whats wrong with that? Whats wrong with them competing for customers who are looking for the best service/price? Finally, why are you so anxious to have big brother taking over the internet? Because obviously its been doing so poorly for the past 20 plus years...

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Posted in: Obama wants more regulation of Internet providers See in context

The government did not create the internet. Honestly, the stupidity that I read sometimes here...

Net neutrality is nothing more then a way of spinning the government takeover of the internet. Something that it has not had before. Oh, there are laws regarding cyber bullying, and stalking, and taxes on purchases over the internet, but not actual regulation. This has enabled the growth of the internet. The government getting its paws on anything, can't help but make things worse. Prices go up, as regulations increase. Corporations pass those costs along to the consumer. The idea that without the government, suddenly, corporations are going to start charging more, or give preference to certain higher paying customers is nonsense. The threat of a government takeover, has kept that from happening, for more then 20 years, since the idea first got floated.

If you opposed big brother spying on you, why are you suddenly so trusting of big brothers motivations in taking over what has been working fine?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: S Korean ferry captain gets 36 years in prison See in context

I think this is a horrific, and unjust sentence. He didn't murder anyone. Death caused by negligence is just that, negligence. Obviously he belongs in prison, but for 36 years? That is in fact a death sentence. And the rest of the crew, 20 years in prison? Insane. The ones who deserve these kind of sentences, are the owners, and the bureaucrats who let this barge go, overloaded. The owner killed himself, so they went after the family, who get a couple years in prison. What about the corrupt government officials who looked the other way? When will we see them prosecuted?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Posted in: 'Sherlock' makers sticking to abbreviated seasons See in context

I watched this just recently, It was very good. Like the other fans, I am disappointed there aren't more episodes, but given the actors schedules, I guess its too much to ask for.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: N Korea calls Abe 'militarist maniac' See in context

I suppose we can all agree that North Koreans are experts on the subject...

Heh, I was thinking, that coming from NK, theres really no greater compliment.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Posted in: Okinawan governor faces revolt in assembly See in context

The Philippians have virtually no defense, hence why China, had no qualms about simply stealing the Spratley islands from them. The Filipinos have no navy to back up their ownership, and so when China sent some ships out there a few years ago, and drove off the Filipinos, there was nothing they could do. Since then, they've started spending a bit more money on defense, and have gone to the US and asked for aid. Had they still had those US bases, China wouldn't have dared to take the Spratelys. It would have put them in direct conflict with the US.

The same is true of Okinawa. China does not want open conflict with the US. Not even with a President as weak as Obama. The costs of such a conflict would be too high. At a minimum, the US could simply wipe out all debt owed to china, freeze all chinese accounts, and property owned by China in the US, and elsewhere. Such an action would do massive damage to the Chinese economy. To say nothing of the probability that they would lose any military conflict with the US. The US while less powerful then they were, has the ability to completely destroy the Chinese Navy, and the Chinese air force, simply could not withstand US air power. There is virtually no scenario, short of going nuclear, that has the Chinese able to defeat the US militarily, and the costs to such an adventure, would be disastrous.

Having the US maintain its bases on Okinawa, means, that China, will not do as they did with the Philippians, openly attack Japan. For Japan, thats a good thing, as they save billions of dollars a year. For the US, its also a good deal. Though while it costs the US billions to maintain bases in Japan, by being there, they act as a deterrent to Chinese agression, and help to maintain the peace in the region. This being the case, the economic benefits for maintaining trade with 2 of its largest trading partners, is easily more then the cost to maintain the bases. And the benefit to Okinawa itself, is billions of dollars in the local economy. Pretty much everyone wins, except the hardliners from Okinawa and China that want the bases gone.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: Japan condemns China fishing curbs; vows to defend islands See in context

Japan needs to negoyiate an agreement over the disputed area....If a war were to start,Japan could be heavily damaged by China. Japans military forces,even when combined with the japan based US military are no match for the military might China has available.....And lets not even mention the Nukes!

Whats to negotiate? Japan owns the islands, China wants them. Whats to negotiate? China wants the islands, should Japan hand them over? Heh, obviously not. You don't give a bully what he wants, or else he will keep demanding more.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Posted in: Japan's envoy to UK hits back at China over Voldemort comparison See in context

Since WW2 how many wars or military actions have the countries been involved in?

Japan - 0 China - Lots

Since WW2, China has managed to get in fights with just about all their neighbors. Russia, India, Pakistan, Korea, Vietnam, Philippines. And of course lets not forget their conquest of, and continued illegal occupation of Tibet.

Are people really worried about Japanese military aggression? Really?

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Posted in: Sea Shepherd says it's ready for aggression from Japan whalers See in context

No one would care if Japan just hunted in its own economic zone, as is traditional.

Never heard of Taiji? All the protests over dolphin hunting? Heh, yeah, it depends what they're hunting, if its cute loveable dolphins or whales, then ya know the eco-nuts are going to protest.

-4 ( +9 / -12 )

Posted in: Japan boosts military outlays to counter Chinese navy See in context

A .8% increase? Really? Wow, Japan is being really pro-active. Especially after years of shrinking budgets.

What's Admiral Koda been smoking? The Russian Navy and British Navy are bigger and better equipped.

Russians ok, but the British? 30 years ago, maybe, but definitely not today. The British navy is a shadow of its former self. The reality is, the PRC navy is much, much stronger than Japans MSDF. Only the US and Russia have more power. Depending on Ship types, NK and the PRC both have almost as many subs as the US does. If it comes to shooting, Japan will fire a few shots for honors sake, and then scream for the US to come rescue them. Thats really the only thing Japan can do with the forces at their command.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

Posted in: Global warming: Fact or fiction? See in context

"Raise your hand if you want to lie bald faced to the world that science is now more certain than ever that human greenhouse gasses are causing dangerous climate change, guarantee your employment for another seven years, keep the grant money and UN funding flowing in, continue living high on the hog at the taxpayers' expense, and enjoy the adoration of flocks of unquestioning worshipers" Wow! Obtaining a "consensus" is a cinch, isn't it?

lol. Good one.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Posted in: Republicans threaten U.S. gov't shutdown over Obamacare See in context

If you have a coverage with a 80/20 coinsurance split with no coverage cap, no health care providers restrictions, $75 emergency, $200 in hospital stay up to 6 days (after 6 days, insurance pays everything), no extra cost to blood supply, for you and you family members, then you are doing fine and doing better than the most.

Yeah, that sounds nice. And definitely is not what I have. I was closer to that before, but after Obamacare was declared constitutional, my company looked at everything, and switched to a cheaper plan. Less coverage, higher deductible, 100k cap.

I don't blame them for the switch. With rates going up, they either have to cut peoples hours to under 30, or change to a health care provider, and plan thats within the budget.

Others will lose their coverage entirely?

The reality is, that all workers over 30 hours, must be provided health insurance by their employer. In many jobs, particularly low wage jobs, this means that instead of having people work 40 hours, they cut their employees hours to under 30. Thus they don't have to provide health insurance. Indeed, the ones who are hurt the most by Obamacare, are the low wage earners. The poor, that Obama professes to care for.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Republicans threaten U.S. gov't shutdown over Obamacare See in context

I do have health insurance. I get it through my job. I'll continue to get it through my job. Its not great insurance, but its good insurance. Its already changed though under the new regime. My new health insurance, not surprisingly is not as good.

Lets be completely frank here. Some people will benefit from Obamacare. People who now currently do not have health insurance for example. But the majority of people who don't have it, will be forced to purchase it, despite having no need of it. Many others, like myself, will lose the good health insurance we had, for lesser coverage. And of course, others will lose their coverage entirely, and be forced to purchase the expensive alternatives now being created. And of course many people are losing hours from their jobs, and being forced to find additional work, to make ends meet. So while there are a few benefits to Obamacare, and some people may actually benefit overall, the majority of people will be hurt greatly by this law.

Obama announced today, that he will shut down the government, if Republicans aren't willing to waste more money on Obamacare. While he didn't expressly come out and say it, nevertheless, he effectively said, that he doesn't care about retired people on social security, or people who rely on food stamps, and may starve without it. No, apparently, all he cares about is that his burdensome, idiotic health care bill gets money. If it doesn't, he is happy to let people starve. Thats a Democrat for you. Holding people hostage.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Republicans threaten U.S. gov't shutdown over Obamacare See in context

They must be, since the only rebuttals you have ever offered to my rational conclusions drawn from hard facts is "You can't see the future," some liberal talking points, a couple platitudes, and just plain false information.

Sad but true. Theres no debate when the reality is as bad as this. Its why so many Dems are running away from Obamacare, and why its being called a train wreck by the very people, who were stupid enough to vote for it.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Posted in: Republicans threaten U.S. gov't shutdown over Obamacare See in context

Obamacare is good for business.

Your definition of good, and mine are obviously different. How anyone can define a law that merely adds to a businesses expense, while not at all improving their bottom line, as being a good thing, is beyond me. Additionally, as it forces businesses to cut employee hours, to under 30 a week, it also hurts a huge number of people, who are then going to be forced to go out and find additional jobs to make ends meet.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Posted in: Republicans threaten U.S. gov't shutdown over Obamacare See in context

I don't really understand this headline. How would the Republicans shut down the government? By passing a funding bill that doesn't include Obamacare, that wouldn't cause the government to shut down. Everything else in the government would be funded, just not Obamacare. If the Dems throw a tantrum and refuse to pass anything until Obamacare gets money, they can then go ahead and explain to the recipients of Social Security, that Obamacare is more important then them getting their checks. The Dems could explain to the poor who depend on food stamps, why they don't care if they starve, so long as Obamacare doesn't.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Posted in: U.S. questions self-defense law after killing of unarmed black teenager in Florida See in context

I think this article sums up my feelings on the Zimmerman/Martin case perfectly.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324448104578618681599902640.html

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Posted in: U.S. questions self-defense law after killing of unarmed black teenager in Florida See in context

Very well explained yabits.

Heh, well, he tryed anyway. I'm not buying though. Just doesn't fit the facts.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Posted in: Tokyo governor's wife dies of brain tumor See in context

It is very sad. I have a close friend fighting the same disease. She was having head aches during several weeks and doctors turned her back home with a few aspirins and rest. But when she started to have blurred vision then found in an online symptom checker called ESAGIL (http://esagil.org) that a Brain Tumor was among the possibilities. Then the diagnosis was confirmed with an MRI scan.

My 86 year old grandmother was just diagnosed with an inoperable brain tumor as well. Very, very sad. Doctors give her about 3 months.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Recent Comments

Popular

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites


©2019 GPlusMedia Inc.