Best piece ever by the amazing Victor Davis Hanson

On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:13:45 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 2:57:09 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 4:59:31 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Best piece ever by the amazing Victor Davis Hanson:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/vote-no-on-1984/

Enjoy!

AJ
It is astounding to me how conservatives fret about 1984 when we have a real slice of 1933. And BTW, not that I'm for court packing, but the reason we have nine judges was because there WERE nine circuit courts. In the early days of the court, the judges actually rode circuit. We now have 13 federal circuit courts. Appellate courts frequently grow and sit in panels to meet volume. The volume of USSC is probably ten times what it was when congress settled on nine judges 150 years ago. There is nothing magical or constitutional about nine judges. Any change, of course, would require an act of congress and not an EO.

Mr Hanson, who regular readers have long decided believes in show, not tell, was merely offering an instance of the Pink Tendency of the Donkey Party, who are just bright enough to know that the demos will never vote for their far-out schemes, trying any ruse to get their way by hook and by crook. Court packing isn't even a new idea: FDR had it before the current bunch of berries in charge of the Donkey Party; Congress put a spoke in his wheels...

And the end of the filibuster? Hmmmm.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-c...ok-like-fools/ Both sides threaten to end the filibuster -- which is just a procedural rule and again not a constitutional mandate.

Again, Mr Hanson is offering an example of Donkey Party idiots getting desperate, willing to try any means, no matter how destructive, for short term gain. It was a Democrat who started the "end the filibuster" nonsense, not a Republican. The filibuster serves the same useful purpose as the Electoral College, to offer minorities some minimum of protection against the irrational, violent mob.

And "reigning in" big tech? Whatever happened to the free market?

Stop wasting my time, Jay. I explained to you the other day that S230 is a huge, huge government subsidy to any opinion business, which these Big Tech clowns are clearly in up to their eyebrows.

Conservatives are so flexible with ideology that it is mindboggling.

You must be talking about Krugman. First time I hear him called a conservative. Speaking for myself, I hold to the monetarist principles of Dr Friedman, as I have since I made my first million at 13.

His musings about regulating the railroads sounds positively socialist.

I must have speed-read over that bit. I thought he was being sardonic. The railroads are no longer important enough for the government to worry about, but when they were important, of course they should have been regulated for safety, and the government had a right, in return for facilitating their purchase of crucial rights of way, to ask if they were acting in the public interest. Furthermore, the railroad cartels were conspiring to fix carriage rates, which was against the law of the country.

And at the Hoover Institute sitting in a tower on a campus constructed by Leland Stanford, kind of humorous -- and dishonest.

Admittedly I haven't been on the Stanford campus since the last time I spoke there, well over forty years ago, but I don't remember any offices in a tower. The part of the Hoover Institution Mr Hanson occupies as the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow is housed in a rather undistinguished office building. Sorry to disappoint you.

FYI, the Hoover Tower is a defining feature of the Stanford campus. https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/me...r-stanford.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Tower

Perhaps you were speaking at the Stanford Shopping Center, which is next to the campus. Was this during the Sink Hole publicity tour? 40 years ago, I was speaking on the Stanford Campus, too -- things like "hold your line" while racing around the linear accelerator complex. I (and the rest of the pack) beat Eric Heiden, who crashed in a corner just before the finish. I also beat some people behind me. That was one of my great career SLAC victories. I lined up for that race next to Eric. He had some of the biggest quads I've seen on a human.

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 9:53:16 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:13:45 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 2:57:09 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 4:59:31 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Best piece ever by the amazing Victor Davis Hanson:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/vote-no-on-1984/

Enjoy!

AJ
It is astounding to me how conservatives fret about 1984 when we have a real slice of 1933. And BTW, not that I'm for court packing, but the reason we have nine judges was because there WERE nine circuit courts. In the early days of the court, the judges actually rode circuit. We now have 13 federal circuit courts. Appellate courts frequently grow and sit in panels to meet volume. The volume of USSC is probably ten times what it was when congress settled on nine judges 150 years ago. There is nothing magical or constitutional about nine judges. Any change, of course, would require an act of congress and not an EO.

Mr Hanson, who regular readers have long decided believes in show, not tell, was merely offering an instance of the Pink Tendency of the Donkey Party, who are just bright enough to know that the demos will never vote for their far-out schemes, trying any ruse to get their way by hook and by crook. Court packing isn't even a new idea: FDR had it before the current bunch of berries in charge of the Donkey Party; Congress put a spoke in his wheels..

And the end of the filibuster? Hmmmm.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-c...ok-like-fools/ Both sides threaten to end the filibuster -- which is just a procedural rule and again not a constitutional mandate..

Again, Mr Hanson is offering an example of Donkey Party idiots getting desperate, willing to try any means, no matter how destructive, for short term gain. It was a Democrat who started the "end the filibuster" nonsense, not a Republican. The filibuster serves the same useful purpose as the Electoral College, to offer minorities some minimum of protection against the irrational, violent mob.

And "reigning in" big tech? Whatever happened to the free market?

Stop wasting my time, Jay. I explained to you the other day that S230 is a huge, huge government subsidy to any opinion business, which these Big Tech clowns are clearly in up to their eyebrows.

Conservatives are so flexible with ideology that it is mindboggling.

You must be talking about Krugman. First time I hear him called a conservative. Speaking for myself, I hold to the monetarist principles of Dr Friedman, as I have since I made my first million at 13.

His musings about regulating the railroads sounds positively socialist..

I must have speed-read over that bit. I thought he was being sardonic. The railroads are no longer important enough for the government to worry about, but when they were important, of course they should have been regulated for safety, and the government had a right, in return for facilitating their purchase of crucial rights of way, to ask if they were acting in the public interest. Furthermore, the railroad cartels were conspiring to fix carriage rates, which was against the law of the country.

And at the Hoover Institute sitting in a tower on a campus constructed by Leland Stanford, kind of humorous -- and dishonest.

Admittedly I haven't been on the Stanford campus since the last time I spoke there, well over forty years ago, but I don't remember any offices in a tower. The part of the Hoover Institution Mr Hanson occupies as the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow is housed in a rather undistinguished office building. Sorry to disappoint you.
FYI, the Hoover Tower is a defining feature of the Stanford campus. https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/me...r-stanford.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Tower

Perhaps you were speaking at the Stanford Shopping Center, which is next to the campus. Was this during the Sink Hole publicity tour? 40 years ago, I was speaking on the Stanford Campus, too -- things like "hold your line" while racing around the linear accelerator complex. I (and the rest of the pack) beat Eric Heiden, who crashed in a corner just before the finish. I also beat some people behind me. That was one of my great career SLAC victories. I lined up for that race next to Eric. He had some of the biggest quads I've seen on a human.

-- Jay Beattie.
For your information the Hoover Tower is unrelated to the Hoover Institute.

On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 10:03:26 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 9:53:16 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:13:45 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 2:57:09 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 4:59:31 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Best piece ever by the amazing Victor Davis Hanson:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/vote-no-on-1984/

Enjoy!

AJ
It is astounding to me how conservatives fret about 1984 when we have a real slice of 1933. And BTW, not that I'm for court packing, but the reason we have nine judges was because there WERE nine circuit courts. In the early days of the court, the judges actually rode circuit. We now have 13 federal circuit courts. Appellate courts frequently grow and sit in panels to meet volume. The volume of USSC is probably ten times what it was when congress settled on nine judges 150 years ago. There is nothing magical or constitutional about nine judges. Any change, of course, would require an act of congress and not an EO.

Mr Hanson, who regular readers have long decided believes in show, not tell, was merely offering an instance of the Pink Tendency of the Donkey Party, who are just bright enough to know that the demos will never vote for their far-out schemes, trying any ruse to get their way by hook and by crook. Court packing isn't even a new idea: FDR had it before the current bunch of berries in charge of the Donkey Party; Congress put a spoke in his wheels..

And the end of the filibuster? Hmmmm.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-c...ok-like-fools/ Both sides threaten to end the filibuster -- which is just a procedural rule and again not a constitutional mandate.

Again, Mr Hanson is offering an example of Donkey Party idiots getting desperate, willing to try any means, no matter how destructive, for short term gain. It was a Democrat who started the "end the filibuster" nonsense, not a Republican. The filibuster serves the same useful purpose as the Electoral College, to offer minorities some minimum of protection against the irrational, violent mob.

And "reigning in" big tech? Whatever happened to the free market?

Stop wasting my time, Jay. I explained to you the other day that S230 is a huge, huge government subsidy to any opinion business, which these Big Tech clowns are clearly in up to their eyebrows.

Conservatives are so flexible with ideology that it is mindboggling.

You must be talking about Krugman. First time I hear him called a conservative. Speaking for myself, I hold to the monetarist principles of Dr Friedman, as I have since I made my first million at 13.

His musings about regulating the railroads sounds positively socialist.

I must have speed-read over that bit. I thought he was being sardonic.. The railroads are no longer important enough for the government to worry about, but when they were important, of course they should have been regulated for safety, and the government had a right, in return for facilitating their purchase of crucial rights of way, to ask if they were acting in the public interest. Furthermore, the railroad cartels were conspiring to fix carriage rates, which was against the law of the country.

And at the Hoover Institute sitting in a tower on a campus constructed by Leland Stanford, kind of humorous -- and dishonest.

Admittedly I haven't been on the Stanford campus since the last time I spoke there, well over forty years ago, but I don't remember any offices in a tower. The part of the Hoover Institution Mr Hanson occupies as the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow is housed in a rather undistinguished office building. Sorry to disappoint you.
FYI, the Hoover Tower is a defining feature of the Stanford campus. https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/me...r-stanford.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Tower

Perhaps you were speaking at the Stanford Shopping Center, which is next to the campus. Was this during the Sink Hole publicity tour? 40 years ago, I was speaking on the Stanford Campus, too -- things like "hold your line" while racing around the linear accelerator complex. I (and the rest of the pack) beat Eric Heiden, who crashed in a corner just before the finish. I also beat some people behind me. That was one of my great career SLAC victories. I lined up for that race next to Eric. He had some of the biggest quads I've seen on a human.

-- Jay Beattie.
For your information the Hoover Tower is unrelated to the Hoover Institute.

Hey DF -- did you even look at the Wiki link: "Hoover Tower also houses the Hoover Institution research center and think tank."
https://www.hoover.org/about/maps-directions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution

Do you just pull this stuff out of your ass (rhetorical question)?

-- Jay Beattie.

On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 10:25:17 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 10:03:26 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 9:53:16 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:13:45 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 2:57:09 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 4:59:31 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Best piece ever by the amazing Victor Davis Hanson:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/vote-no-on-1984/

Enjoy!

AJ
It is astounding to me how conservatives fret about 1984 when we have a real slice of 1933. And BTW, not that I'm for court packing, but the reason we have nine judges was because there WERE nine circuit courts. In the early days of the court, the judges actually rode circuit. We now have 13 federal circuit courts. Appellate courts frequently grow and sit in panels to meet volume. The volume of USSC is probably ten times what it was when congress settled on nine judges 150 years ago. There is nothing magical or constitutional about nine judges. Any change, of course, would require an act of congress and not an EO.

Mr Hanson, who regular readers have long decided believes in show, not tell, was merely offering an instance of the Pink Tendency of the Donkey Party, who are just bright enough to know that the demos will never vote for their far-out schemes, trying any ruse to get their way by hook and by crook. Court packing isn't even a new idea: FDR had it before the current bunch of berries in charge of the Donkey Party; Congress put a spoke in his wheels..

And the end of the filibuster? Hmmmm.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-c...ok-like-fools/ Both sides threaten to end the filibuster -- which is just a procedural rule and again not a constitutional mandate.

Again, Mr Hanson is offering an example of Donkey Party idiots getting desperate, willing to try any means, no matter how destructive, for short term gain. It was a Democrat who started the "end the filibuster" nonsense, not a Republican. The filibuster serves the same useful purpose as the Electoral College, to offer minorities some minimum of protection against the irrational, violent mob.

And "reigning in" big tech? Whatever happened to the free market?

Stop wasting my time, Jay. I explained to you the other day that S230 is a huge, huge government subsidy to any opinion business, which these Big Tech clowns are clearly in up to their eyebrows.

Conservatives are so flexible with ideology that it is mindboggling.

You must be talking about Krugman. First time I hear him called a conservative. Speaking for myself, I hold to the monetarist principles of Dr Friedman, as I have since I made my first million at 13.

His musings about regulating the railroads sounds positively socialist.

I must have speed-read over that bit. I thought he was being sardonic. The railroads are no longer important enough for the government to worry about, but when they were important, of course they should have been regulated for safety, and the government had a right, in return for facilitating their purchase of crucial rights of way, to ask if they were acting in the public interest. Furthermore, the railroad cartels were conspiring to fix carriage rates, which was against the law of the country.

And at the Hoover Institute sitting in a tower on a campus constructed by Leland Stanford, kind of humorous -- and dishonest.

Admittedly I haven't been on the Stanford campus since the last time I spoke there, well over forty years ago, but I don't remember any offices in a tower. The part of the Hoover Institution Mr Hanson occupies as the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow is housed in a rather undistinguished office building. Sorry to disappoint you.
FYI, the Hoover Tower is a defining feature of the Stanford campus. https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/me...r-stanford.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Tower

Perhaps you were speaking at the Stanford Shopping Center, which is next to the campus. Was this during the Sink Hole publicity tour? 40 years ago, I was speaking on the Stanford Campus, too -- things like "hold your line" while racing around the linear accelerator complex. I (and the rest of the pack) beat Eric Heiden, who crashed in a corner just before the finish. I also beat some people behind me. That was one of my great career SLAC victories. I lined up for that race next to Eric. He had some of the biggest quads I've seen on a human.

-- Jay Beattie.
For your information the Hoover Tower is unrelated to the Hoover Institute.
Hey DF -- did you even look at the Wiki link: "Hoover Tower also houses the Hoover Institution research center and think tank."
https://www.hoover.org/about/maps-directions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution

Do you just pull this stuff out of your ass (rhetorical question)?

-- Jay Beattie.
When was the last time you were on the Stanford Campus Jay? That old tower is practically falling down and it is surrounded by buildings that are NOT a part of it. We ride though the campus on hill rides or the Santa Cruz ride. Or the Aptos ride. I drive though it on my semi-monthly doctor's appointment for one of the neurological professors. Be sure and be very lawyerly and tell us how much you don't know.

On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 10:25:17 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 10:03:26 AM UTC-8, Tom Kunich wrote:
On Tuesday, November 3, 2020 at 9:53:16 AM UTC-8, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 10:13:45 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 2:57:09 PM UTC, jbeattie wrote:
On Monday, November 2, 2020 at 4:59:31 AM UTC-8, Andre Jute wrote:
Best piece ever by the amazing Victor Davis Hanson:
https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/11/vote-no-on-1984/

Enjoy!

AJ
It is astounding to me how conservatives fret about 1984 when we have a real slice of 1933. And BTW, not that I'm for court packing, but the reason we have nine judges was because there WERE nine circuit courts. In the early days of the court, the judges actually rode circuit. We now have 13 federal circuit courts. Appellate courts frequently grow and sit in panels to meet volume. The volume of USSC is probably ten times what it was when congress settled on nine judges 150 years ago. There is nothing magical or constitutional about nine judges. Any change, of course, would require an act of congress and not an EO.

Mr Hanson, who regular readers have long decided believes in show, not tell, was merely offering an instance of the Pink Tendency of the Donkey Party, who are just bright enough to know that the demos will never vote for their far-out schemes, trying any ruse to get their way by hook and by crook. Court packing isn't even a new idea: FDR had it before the current bunch of berries in charge of the Donkey Party; Congress put a spoke in his wheels..

And the end of the filibuster? Hmmmm.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-c...ok-like-fools/ Both sides threaten to end the filibuster -- which is just a procedural rule and again not a constitutional mandate.

Again, Mr Hanson is offering an example of Donkey Party idiots getting desperate, willing to try any means, no matter how destructive, for short term gain. It was a Democrat who started the "end the filibuster" nonsense, not a Republican. The filibuster serves the same useful purpose as the Electoral College, to offer minorities some minimum of protection against the irrational, violent mob.

And "reigning in" big tech? Whatever happened to the free market?

Stop wasting my time, Jay. I explained to you the other day that S230 is a huge, huge government subsidy to any opinion business, which these Big Tech clowns are clearly in up to their eyebrows.

Conservatives are so flexible with ideology that it is mindboggling.

You must be talking about Krugman. First time I hear him called a conservative. Speaking for myself, I hold to the monetarist principles of Dr Friedman, as I have since I made my first million at 13.

His musings about regulating the railroads sounds positively socialist.

I must have speed-read over that bit. I thought he was being sardonic. The railroads are no longer important enough for the government to worry about, but when they were important, of course they should have been regulated for safety, and the government had a right, in return for facilitating their purchase of crucial rights of way, to ask if they were acting in the public interest. Furthermore, the railroad cartels were conspiring to fix carriage rates, which was against the law of the country.

And at the Hoover Institute sitting in a tower on a campus constructed by Leland Stanford, kind of humorous -- and dishonest.

Admittedly I haven't been on the Stanford campus since the last time I spoke there, well over forty years ago, but I don't remember any offices in a tower. The part of the Hoover Institution Mr Hanson occupies as the Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow is housed in a rather undistinguished office building. Sorry to disappoint you.
FYI, the Hoover Tower is a defining feature of the Stanford campus. https://media-cdn.tripadvisor.com/me...r-stanford.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Tower

Perhaps you were speaking at the Stanford Shopping Center, which is next to the campus. Was this during the Sink Hole publicity tour? 40 years ago, I was speaking on the Stanford Campus, too -- things like "hold your line" while racing around the linear accelerator complex. I (and the rest of the pack) beat Eric Heiden, who crashed in a corner just before the finish. I also beat some people behind me. That was one of my great career SLAC victories. I lined up for that race next to Eric. He had some of the biggest quads I've seen on a human.

-- Jay Beattie.
For your information the Hoover Tower is unrelated to the Hoover Institute.
Hey DF -- did you even look at the Wiki link: "Hoover Tower also houses the Hoover Institution research center and think tank."
https://www.hoover.org/about/maps-directions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoover_Institution

Do you just pull this stuff out of your ass (rhetorical question)?

-- Jay Beattie.
By he way, I'm pretty certain that the Hoover Institute is in a building about a mile away from the tower. As far as I was able to tell there wasn't any offices in the tower itself. Try removing your head from it before you tell us all this garbage.

Can you tell us which large Republican cities have protest riots in them burning and looting? Or do you think that people in Houston or Phoenix would gladly put up with that? You live in Portland and have the unmitigated nerve to tell me what a **** hole San Leandro is? I have illegal aliens living in the houses on both sides of me. That is because of open borders which is a Democrat policy.