Another VP pick, another European terror attack

Azira black ribbon_thb

by NW Spotlight

It’s a sign of the times. A week ago Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s announcement of Indiana Gov. Mike Pence as his pick for vice president was overshadowed by the terror attack in Nice, France. That terror attack, by Tunisian Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel, killed 84 people on France’s Bastille Day when he drove a truck threw the crowd.

Exactly one week later, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s announcement yesterday of Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.) as her pick for vice president was overshadowed by the terror attack in Munich, Germany. Yesterday’s Munich terror attack, by German-Iranian Ali David Sonboly, killed 9 people near a shopping mall in Munich – Sonboly used a pistol in the attack.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Post to LinkedIn Post to Reddit

Posted by at 08:00 | Posted in 2016 Presidential Election, Terrorism | 66 Comments |Email This Post Email This Post |Print This Post Print This Post
  • DavidAppell

    It’s a big world. You don’t have to be terrified over every event thousands of miles away just because the media wants to keep you frightened.

    You can think for yourself, if you try.

    • Dick Winningstad

      For sure wait for the head loppers to come to Portland instead of killing them on their turf. Even though killing them in the Middle East did keep attacks in the west to a minimum.

      • guest

        AppellsCiderHouse drools half fast often a half pint firkin of left wing libtardatory.

      • DavidAppell

        I feel sorry for you, Dick, spending every day afraid that someone is going to come and cut off your head or gun you down in your sleep.

        There *is* a better way to live, you know. (Do you?) Crime is now half of what is was under Reagan…. Don’t let Fox News scare you silly.

        • Dick Winningstad

          I am not sure what to make of your position. Why would you want to wait for head loppers to come to Portland? Why not deal with them on their turf? Obviously a certain lacking in tactics knowledge.

          • DavidAppell

            You’re afraid of the world, Dick. It terrifies you.

            I am not afraid of it. It’s a huge world and what you see repeated on media day in and day out is not a representative sample. By far.

            Wise up. Stop being such a pussy.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Uh, you have resorted to insults I guess you are through.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Actually I am not afraid of the world. I do worry about my kids and grand-kids future as we slide into socialism and the stagnant economy it will bring.

          • DavidAppell

            How do you like the socialism that saved you tens of thousands of dollars on your home mortgage, Dick? That subsidized employee health insurance premiums? Retirement plans?

            Or is that all socialism you like because it has benefited you personally?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Socialism? Private insurance? Private retirement? Where are you coming from?

          • DavidAppell

            You aren’t even aware of the subsidies you get from government!

            “Government’s hand has long shaped and subsidized health-care markets, for example, in Medicare and Medicaid (which dominate how medical care is organized and delivered in America, even for care that falls outside their reach), or the requirement that hospitals treat urgent care needs of indigents.

            “But perhaps the most consequential subsidy is rarely mentioned or even noticed: Government for decades has directly subsidized individuals’ costs of employer-based health care, to the tune of roughly $250 billion every year – sums far greater than the annual costs of the subsidized insurance coverage provisions of the Affordable Care Act.”
            From “The huge health-care subsidy everyone is ignoring,” Edward Kleinbard, Washington Post, October 15, 2013:

            http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/10/15/the-huge-health-care-subsidy-everyone-is-ignoring/

          • Dick Winningstad

            You are a liar. Government does not make direct payments for employer insurance. The government does not run employer insurance yet. But give them time with the current system.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Tax deductions are not payments.

          • DavidAppell

            “Government does not make direct payments for employer insurance.”

            That’s not the only definition of a subsidy, dummy.

            Government subsides employees $250 B/yr towards their health insurance.

            And people like you can’t even be appreciative about it.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmm….. using your definition, then any tax break is a subsidy eh? So are you in favor of a flat tax so we quit subsidizing low income people? They get low to no tax rates compared to the wealthy.
            Any subsidy is bad including the tax breaks business gets. We should be in a flat ax system which you should agree with it seems.
            And no I am not appreciative of gifts from the government to buy my vote.

          • DavidAppell

            Yes, tax breaks are subsidies, especially when they only go to some and not all.

            If you disagree, you won’t mind giving those tax breaks back, right?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Do you pay more than the required taxes if you support governemnt spending so much?

          • DavidAppell

            Is that really your excuse for the subsidies you can’t emit you get?

            Can’t you even acknowledge these subsidies?

          • DavidAppell

            Dick Winningstad wrote:
            “Do you pay more than the required taxes if you support governemnt spending so much?”

            I’m wondering why mortgage holders get a large subsidy on their housing payments, and renters don’t.

            Although the vast majority of the home mortgage interest subsidy goes to the affluent and rich:

            It costs about $130 B/yr, and homeowners can easily make a several thousand dollars a year off it, for many years, especially in the beginning of their mortgage. The wealthiest 20% of Americans capture more than 80% of this subsidy — and less than 4% of it goes to the bottom 60%. And it inflates home prices.

            Then there are deductions for second homes, property taxes ($31 B/yr), exclusion of capital gains taxes on home sales ($50 B/yr), etc. [Compare to $48 B/yr, which is the total of all HUD outlays (Dept of Housing and Urban Development)]. Deductions for purchasing health insurance, retirement savings, savings for higher education, and on and on. Little of this goes to the poor.

            “Reforming the Mortgage Interest Deduction”
            Eric Toder et al, April 2010
            http://www.urban.org/publications/412099.html

          • Dick Winningstad

            David, You are dodging the question. If government is so great are you paying more in taxes than required?

          • DavidAppell

            Have a home mortgage, Dick? How many tens of thousands of dollars did government subsidies save you?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Says the man that doesn’t like subsidies. So are you for a flat tax or only for subsidies that you like?

          • DavidAppell

            You didn’t answer: how many tens of thousands of dollars did the government pay of your home mortgage?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Zero. As they did not make any mortgage payments.

          • DavidAppell

            Dick Winningstad wrote:
            “Zero. As they did not make any mortgage payments.”

            1) Do you have a mortgage?
            2) If so, have you declared its interest as a deduction, as the laws allow you to?
            3) What is your estimate of this benefit over the years since you have had a mortgage?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Again. the government did not make any hoouse payments.

          • DavidAppell

            But it made your house payments lower, didn’t it?

          • Cold Miser

            You’re conflating subsidies with tax breaks. Two very different things. Section 8 would be a subsidy. Deducting mortgage interest isn’t.
            Government doesn’t pay for house mortgages, section 8 rent, yes, but not mortgages. Government encourages citizens to buy houses by getting a tax break by paying less taxes then they otherwise would. They aren’t giving you money, Government is still taking your money, you just don’t have to pay them as much. The average American with a mortgage will pay about $1,900 annually less to the government.

          • DavidAppell

            If it’s not a subsidy, then you won’t mind giving it back, right?

          • ratamacue76

            That is a non-argument. Tax breaks aren’t subsidies regardless of how you spin it. Keeping what is yours to begin with, and then counting it as government expense, is faulty logic.

          • DavidAppell

            Of course tax breaks are subsidies — it’s more money in your pocket due to government action.

            I understand your reluctance to admit it, though. No one likes to admit their own subsidies, they just like to complain about the subsidies others get.

          • ratamacue76

            A subsidy is a public expenditure, and a tax break is not. That is simply a fact.

          • DavidAppell

            “A subsidy is a public expenditure, and a tax break is not.”

            False.

            A tax break for you means others must be taxed more to make up for it.

            Something that defines you as a special class and puts money in your pocket as a result, is a subsidy.

          • DavidAppell

            Definition of “subsidy,” from Merriam Webster:

            a : a sum of money formerly granted by the British Parliament to the crown and raised by special taxation
            b : money granted by one state to another
            c : a grant by a government to a private person or company to assist an enterprise deemed advantageous to the public

            http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subsidy

          • DavidAppell

            Just because the money comes to you as a reduction in your taxes doesn’t mean it’s not real money.

            It very much is.

          • ratamacue76

            Keeping what is already yours is not an expenditure, and a subsidy is a public expenditure, regardless of what you think it is. You can be as stubborn about this as you wish to be; however, you can’t change the definition of the word.

          • Cold Miser

            I’m sorry, I don’t understand your question. Give what back? What would I “be giving back” and to whom?

          • guest

            wussy seemingly be ewe appell libtard cede from below the depths of common consesus

          • DavidAppell

            That’s three times tonight I’ve caught you lying, Dick Winningstad.

            You’re done here.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Uh, no lies here. You are resorting to insults so I guess I will let you go. Your lack of knowledge of history is very obvious.

          • DavidAppell

            Dick, I’ve got your number. You lie when it suits you, as I’ve proved here several times tonight. You make things up with no regard for the truth. You are afraid of the world and think it gives you the right to be a pretend-soldier.

            Loser.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Mr. Appell is off in his own world now. Insults do you no good.

          • DavidAppell

            You also lied about the Oregonian Editorial Board and taxes.

            2 strikes.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Hmmm… lied? No. But I do thank you for pointing out the Oregonian is consistent and is against taxes when they directly effect the Oregonian.

          • DavidAppell

            You did lie — because you spouted off without doing the necessary research.

            Again, very Republican-like.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Ad you lied about Reagan crime rates and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

          • DavidAppell

            Learn to read: the 2A contains an initial clause, and that clause matters, or else why include it?

          • Dick Winningstad

            I have researched the context and history behind the 2nd Something you did not do therefore you are a liar by your standards.

          • DavidAppell

            It’s sad you can’t read and understand the very words of the 2A itself.

            Why did they mention a militia if they intended the amendment to have nothing to do with militias? You have been avoiding this question for days now….

          • Dick Winningstad

            Are you going to insist on your canard? If so present any supporting evidence from the era.
            I will repeat (please read slowly) the BoR was aimed at the national government initially until it was applied to the States after the ratification of the 14th Amendment. The 2nd tells the national government not to disarm the people. The militia was composed of the people who were expected to show up with their own arms. This is a point you miss repeatedly. Why?
            Then read the Federalist no. 46 about the people being armed and is an advantage over the despotisms that have disarmed the people in Europe. This was written by James Madison who, at the urging of Jefferson, later promised to put in a Bill of Rights to re-assure the anti-federalists the Constitution was ok. The assumption back then was the people were to be armed. And the 2nd was to prevent the national government from disarming the people. Your interpretation is form the 1950’s when gun grabbers were just starting.
            Please admit your mistake.

          • DavidAppell

            Did the government make your house payments lower?

          • Dick Winningstad

            Liar Dave sticks to the same canard. Elsewhere it has been explained to you several times. If you will not admit your error then you must be a liar.

          • Dick Winningstad

            Uh, no. You have pointed out that Hillary was not fired and I agree. You pointed out the Oregonian is consistent in opposing taxes that directly effect them. You have, using your logic, lied about crime rates during the Reagan era and the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

          • DavidAppell

            “You have pointed out that Hillary was not fired and I agree.”

            You agreed that you lied.

          • No Passover for his hymn

            An you are so dung here, Appell snoose jambalaya

          • Rescind your NWO ardor Appell

            An’ you’re dung here, DavidAppell pie chartering for what’s left or us.

        • Dick Winningstad

          Seems you Are mistaken. I will refrain from calling you a liar. Violent crime was higher during the Reagan years but not by a factor of two.
          http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

          • Dick Winningstad

            And even CNN acknowledges a rise in violent crime in Democrat controlled urban areas.

            http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/25/politics/violent-crime-report-us-cities-homicides-rapes/

          • DavidAppell

            You lied about Hillary Clinton being fired from the Watergate committee.

            Are you man enough to admit it?

          • Dick Winningstad

            I think I did admit the mistake elsewhere. So one out of many.

          • DavidAppell

            You did not admit it. Where? (Link?)

          • DavidAppell

            “Violent crime was higher during the Reagan years but not by a factor of two.”

            Wrong!

            Here are the FBI statistics on violent crime, 1960-2012:

            http://www.ucrdatatool.gov/Search/Crime/State/RunCrimeTrendsInOneVar.cfm

            Dividing by US population to get the rate, we see that violent crime peaked in 1992 at 7.49 incidents per 1000.

            In 2012, the rate was 3.86 per thousand, 49% lower!

            Wrong as usual, Dick.

          • Dick Winningstad

            You are aware that Reagan was in office from 1981 – 1989? Using numbers from the Clinton era does not bolster your point.

          • DavidAppell

            A president is clearly responsible for issues like crime a couple years after they leave office, because their policies are still in effect.

            We can blame it on Republican GHW Bush if you want.

            You’ll have to squirm harder.

          • Appell’s bin sauced again

            Appell, ewe peer to be mutton butt a loin of lamb nearing severance and barbecuing upon an Antichrist venue. .

          • DavidAppell

            Time for you to admit you were wrong here, too.

Stay Tuned...

Stay up to date with the latest political news and commentary from Oregon Catalyst through daily email updates:

Prefer another subscription option? Subscribe to our RSS Feed, become a fan on Facebook, or follow us on Twitter.

Twitter Facebook

No Thanks (close this box)