The Campaign For DA

3.24.2016

Random Thursday Morning Thoughts




  • There's a guy who tweets me everyday and rates the Random Thought Girl. I'm guessing he is going to be pleased.
  • There might have been a 12 vehicle accident in Dallas this morning. Everyone just needs to slow down. 
  • This Cruz/Trump twitter fight over their wives is insane. Did Trump really say that Cruz's wife is a former call girl?
  • And this from Trump is insane as he compares his wife to Cruz's wife: 
  • Implosion of the GOP at the national level. 
  • Dallas coach Jason Garrett on new free agent Alfred Morris: "He's a really good football player."  As Trump would say, "Garrett is so low energy." 
  • That was a heck of lightning storm last night which was also beautiful.
  • Shout out to a high ranking Wise County law enforcement officer who gave me a call yesterday because he wanted my thoughts on what I have been observing from my review of DVDs of traffic stops. And  you know how this works? He didn't take what I said at face value but he made notes. He'll continue to research and compare other notes as he talks to others and will then make his own conclusions.
  • In the NFL, a new rule is that any kickoff out of the end zone or downed will now be set at the 25 yard line. It's a different college rule, but you know what Baylor does? They "pooch kick" almost every time. It gets launched high in the air and try to have it come down at the 20 but with the kickoff team basically already there. The return team is almost in panic mode on many occasions.
  • BagOfNothing has his boy in T-ball and wrote today about fielding grounders. Here's the greatest tip to do so: Bend at the knees and get your butt down! So many kids just bend at the waist which will end up in a disaster.
  • I'm sad to announce that Barry University lost in the basketball playoffs (lower division) in Frisco yesterday. And I would like to admit I actually have a couple of Barry University T-Shirts. 
  • Great line I heard at the courthouse yesterday: What the heck has Belgium ever done to anyone?
  • Incredibly random fact: Did you know that Doris Day is still alive? And what percentage of the population knows who Doris Day is? 
  • Happy Birthday to Mrs. LL. I think she is turning 21 but I'll have to double check that. 

74 comments:

Anonymous said...

Barry is pleased that the GOP is imploding. The fool doesn't realize that the whole world is imploding.

Anonymous said...

There might have been a 12 vehicle accident in Dallas this morning. Everyone just needs to slow down.



Not to sound racist, but with years of law enforcement experience it is easy to say that Illegals cant drive and cause tons of accidents, usually hit and runs.

wordkyle said...

So I'm forced - forced! - to ask what prompted the Doris Day IRF bullet point.

Anonymous said...

Great line I heard at the courthouse yesterday: What the heck has Belgium ever done to anyone?



Great line I heard in my head: That is what happens with you let thousands and thousands of 'refugees' into a country willy-nilly.

Anonymous said...

"Belgium" was not the target of the bombs. No more than Denver, Virginia Tech or Waco were the targets for killings there recently. Nobody asked "what has Denver ever done to anyone" after Columbine. These places are just where these idiots happen to live or go and where they have easy access to kill kids and moms and old people.

Triple Fake... said...

Brussels sprouts

Anonymous said...

Shout out to a high ranking Wise County law enforcement officer who gave me a call yesterday because he wanted my thoughts on what I have been observing from my review of DVDs of traffic stops.........



It gives you that warm fuzzy feeling that the world is perfect once again when both sides of the aisle can come together and make the world a better place, doesn't it? Its almost like that officer doesn't know how much you hate and bash LEO's on a weekly basis. Cats and Dogs living together. Police and liberal lawyers working and striving to put right what once went wrong, and hoping each time that his next leap will be the leap home…”

Anonymous said...

What the heck has Belgium ever done to anyone? Don't ask people in the Congo. The warlords hacking off limbs as a statement of political violence was introduced by the Congo's Belgian colonial rulers.

But that has very little, if anything, to do with this week's attacks.

Anonymous said...

No - The world of old white haters is imploding, they are just so self-important to think the entire world is. Hate on my brother...get you some more Trump... feed it.

Anonymous said...

Everyone just needs to slow down.

It is not law enforcement's job to lecture anyone. That's my job.

- DF BSG

Anonymous said...

Brussels is he seat of government for the EU. So, a lot.

Don't double check her age. You won't like what you find.

Tage

Anonymous said...

wordkyle - read bag of nothing in regards to Doris Day.

Anonymous said...

8:56 - Trump's popularity and s part of what I was referring to.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle,

Bag of Nothing mentioned Doris Day on his blog this morning and linked to Que Sera, Sera.

That's my guess as to why Barry made that point.

DF Rock Hudson

Anonymous said...

Doris Day was the reason why Monday Night Football ended up on ABC and not CBS.

Anonymous said...

Prediction: Tomorrow's random thoughts will have a phrase to the effect of ..."once again I am the hardest working man in show business."

Anonymous said...

iSIS is to Islam what KKK is to southern baptist

Belgium is taking a hit pr wise but a nation of 11 million doesn't have the resources US, England ,France does

The city divided amongst 9 police department some of which speak French and others Flemish doesn't halp

Anonymous said...

"...the world of old white haters..."

What in the world are you talking about? Are you really that foolish? Self-loathing much?

Anonymous said...

8:56 hates her father.

Anonymous said...

No - The world of old white haters is imploding, they are just so self-important to think the entire world is.


Uh, well, in this nation it is the old white haters as you call them they built this country to its greatest point. and they are trying to stop stupid lib tards like you from destroying it, but its probably too late.

Anonymous said...

The GOP may be imploding, but only because Trump has decided to label himself as a Republican. Without the Trump distraction, Kasich would have been heard and would be the nominee. I am convinced that Trump is running on behalf of the Dems. It is a win win for them. If he loses to HillBill, victory, if Trump wins, he governs as the Dem he is.
Actually, it is a brilliant plan by the Dems.
Too bad it will send our nation careening of the tracks either way.

that guy said...

The GOP isn't imploding so much as it's becoming apparent that they've been in collusion with the Democrats all along. Honestly, while we argue guns and babies, federal spending has continued to skyrocket, the bush tax cuts have become the obama tax cuts, we are still fighting in the middle east, the push to nationalize the healthcare industry continues, and the big money behind everything is funding both sides because they win no matter what.

Look at the feckless candidates the Republicans have trotted out the last two election cycles and tell there was an honest effort to win. Hillary Clinton is the best the Democrats can offer??

The fix was in from the beginning and the planned Bush or Rubio vs. Clinton guaranteed that it was going to be business as usual no matter who won.

Hell, the most qualified guy in the room (Kasich) can't even garner much support out of his own state - which if you look at Ohio, they're doing something right up there.

Enter reactionary Trump and geriatric Bernie. No on took either guy seriously and if it weren't for the Democrats rigging the game, super delegates, then the implosion that you are referencing would be happening on both sides.

My philosophy hasn't changed and I am a firm believer that conservatism works and if applied properly would "Make America Great Again". Truth be told there are no conservative candidates running. Just a bunch of moderate/liberals. Ted Cruz is too much of a nut to be taken seriously.

Come election day if I can't vote for Trump or Bernie I'll vote Libertarian and regardless of party offiliation I'm voting against every incumbent on the ballot. But you guys keep arguing about silly shit because reasons and superiority.

Anonymous said...

@0918

Is there ever a time when it isn't daddy issues?

Anonymous said...

Its almost like that officer doesn't know how much you hate and bash LEO's on a weekly basis. - 8:53

It's almost like you don't understand LEOs doing their job properly by following the rules or acting like they make the rules. Kudos for the officer for wanting to improve his department.

Anonymous said...

Plano is not Dallas. Let's be clear about that.

Anonymous said...

Barry, when choosing a complimentary age for your wife, be sure to choose one that suggests she was of legal age when you married her.

Anonymous said...

To "make America great again" you have to start taxing the rich and corporations like we did "when we were great". You can't just profit off of the population and not pay your share of taxes. Infrastructure does not just magically appear out of thin air.

Anonymous said...

Most presidential election years I'm disturbed by how mean the candidates can be. This time it's completely absurd. Trump has turned this process into a circus. Using his wife's looks as a way to insult other candidates? Clinton - uhhh, don't get me started. If you're under criminal review for alleged international crimes, you wouldn't be hired to serve me fries much less run an entire country. How is it possible these people are gaining the most momentum?!

Anonymous said...

Turning 21? Terrible, terrible. It's just terrible.

DF Donald Trump

Anonymous said...

I agree with most 9:45's points. I will only add that leftism is humanities default position. We're born dependent and die dependent. Only in our middle years can we be self reliant and supportive.

A minority segment of the population preaching personal responsibility and self reliance to dependent groups is destined to fail.

Anonymous said...

Doris Day was a happening gal back in the day. Kind of like the preacher's daughter. Prim and proper in public, but get her behind closed doors and WHOAAAA! Always had a thing for her.

DF Jimmy Stewart

Anonymous said...



9:13 - Isis is to Islam what the KKK is to the Southern Baptist???

You are most likely in middle school based on your use of grammar.
I will try to help you understand rather than criticize.

First, to attack Southern Baptist is probably ill advised based on their membership, which is comprised a great deal of African Americans. I doubt the KKK has a large contingency in that denomination.
Isis has recruited many that have Muslim or Islamic ties but, also they have converted many other religious groups into the fold. Try to understand that just speaking out against something applies no solutions. So, when you get home from school today, have an apple and rethink your remarks.
Try to be a part of a solution in this society instead of hurling bogus insults into the fire.

Anonymous said...



"...the world of old white haters..."

China alone is 60% of the world population.
White or Caucasian people are only about 15% or less of the world population and declining.

Your statement is completely nonsensical.

Therefore, Jesse Jerkoff or AL Sharptongue you should actually get an education instead of being awarded one (based on your color) to prevent such moronic commentary......

Anonymous said...

9:13 makes a good point.

Those shifty christians have been plotting to overthorw our government all along.

look at their two most influential leaders, Rev. Sharpton and Rev. Jackson. Terrorists in the truest sense of the word.

Anonymous said...

10:17 -

Your attempts to be a smart@ss fail immediately when you base the entire premise of your argument on the Southern Baptist denomination being "comprised a great deal of African Americans." Unless, of course, you consider 6% to be "a great deal." Pretty sure any organization that's 85% white isn't what would be considered ethnically diverse.

Source: http://www.pewforum.org/religious-landscape-study/religious-denomination/southern-baptist-convention/#racial-and-ethnic-composition

By doing a little research into the history of the Southern Baptist denomination you'll find that it was born out of a split over the issue of slavery - and it didn't come down on the right side of the issue. There a numerous historical ties between the SBC and the KKK.

I'd love to see your source on percentages of non-Muslims joining ISIS, as I can't find any data on that. It's an interesting question, and I'm sure it's hard to pin down because it's not like ISIS is completing demographic surveys.

I'd finish with some comment about how you're ignorant and shouldn't hurl insults, but then I'd just sound like an @sshole.

Anonymous said...

Maybe it is imploding. What are you going to do to stop it? Pray?

Rage

Anonymous said...

On the backs of minorities, and while benefitting from the socialist GI Bill....

wordkyle said...

957 - "and not pay your share of taxes." - Exactly how much is one's "share" of taxes? I'll agree that zero percent is not desirable, but otherwise what is your idea of a "share" of taxes -- and on what do you base your answer?

Anonymous said...

Fail.

Trump is not causing the GOP to implode, he is the result of it. And now, the GOP is rallying behind Cruz, who ran on the platform of blowing up the GOP in the first place.

Y'all are some smart ones.

If you didn't want Trump to run as a Republican, why didn't your national party show the modicum of smarts that the yay-hoos running the Wise County GOP did when they wouldn't let BG run as an R?

Rage

Anonymous said...

10:17 - You know you just reinforced 9:13's point, right? Not that I can really understand their entire point because I'm not reading at a 3rd grade level.

Anonymous said...

iSIS is to Islam what KKK is to southern baptist

Ok, I have revised my previous choice for most idiotic comment ever on this blog to the one above.

Anonymous said...

RTG - I would definitely take my time.

Nice one BG.

Anonymous said...

But I like guns and babies!

Anonymous said...

So, where do you keep your hood?

Anonymous said...

DF Bacon says:

10 out of 10!!

Love the peek a boo tan lines! Absolute perfection!!

Good job BG!!

Anonymous said...

@1059 - too late

Anonymous said...

hey 1059

maybe you didn't get the memo you racist piece of garbage.

DF#blacklivesmatter

Anonymous said...

@1131

and if you like your guns and babies, you can keep em.

DF B. Obama, aka HNIC

Anonymous said...

10:30 -

China alone is 60% of the world population.*


*citation needed

Anonymous said...

a rudimentary interweb search and basic math says china is 18% of the world's population

do you even google 1030 and 1221?

DF Sundar Pichai

Anonymous said...




12:21 pm - it should have said ASIA ..not China

World Population by race:

Asia
4,307,107,875
60.3%
Africa
1,037,524,058
14.5%
Europe
816,426,346
11.4%
North America
544,620,340
7.6%
South America
400,067,694
5.6%
Australia/Oceania
35,426,995
0.5%
Antarctica
1,169
0.00002%
Total
7,141,174,477
100.0%

Anonymous said...


10:59 - we both know that Baptist church black membership is probably a smaller percentage than whites therefore it is not as ethnically diverse as you state.
On the other hand it is not the F*ing Grammy's and you are not Will and Jada Smith.
Here is my research for your racist comparison:

Race, ethnicity, and nationality Among Southern Baptist worshipers there are no significant differences in the weekly attendance rate of Whites (88%), Blacks (87%), and Hispanics (89%).
The rate is slightly lower for Asians (80%).
Persons born outside the U.S.in English speaking countries have a slightly lower rate of weekly attendance than those born
in the U.S. (82% versus 87%).
Those born outside the U.S. in non-English-speaking
countries have the same rate at those born in the U.S. (88%).

Find it here:http://www.namb.net/namb1cb1col.aspx?id=8590001121
Open the PDF at the bottom labeled research...

Being a race baiter - I'm sure you'd love to align with Isis and the Jackson's and Sharpton's of this Country.
I do not care how the Baptists started or what Percentage of non-Muslims join Isis.
I care that radicals like yourself throw around racial cards like Isis beheads people. I'm watching you and your types because you are the next threat to this country. http://giphy.com/gifs/robert-de-niro-gifset-deniro-IMOH7KL8x6aC4

Anonymous said...

Exactly how much is one's "share" of taxes? - Wordkyle

Here you got Wordy. Give this a read.

http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2013-01-02/1950s-tax-fantasy-is-a-republican-nightmare

Anonymous said...

Decatur ISD what a joke

Anonymous said...

Wow. You're throwing Bloomberg at Wordkyle. Why don't you just tag the Communist Manifesto and tell him to read that? Practically the same thing.

wordkyle said...

254 - And your point?

Anonymous said...

Wordy, you asked a question, you got an answer. What I didn't see was any comment on the answer. You want the "good old days", you have to pay the price to get them.

Anonymous said...

Slidell ISD. Family owned and operated. Crayons provided.

Anonymous said...

2:16 -

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.

Anonymous said...

3:53

One of these days you'll figure out nobody gives a damn about what you think.

The sooner the better.

Anonymous said...

Best. RTG. Ever.

Anonymous said...

9:13 AM

iSIS is to Islam what KKK is to southern baptist

You could not be more wrong. You obviously do not know the religion of Islam.

wordkyle said...

444 - No, 254 responded to the post without answering my question. The article cited was about how official and effective tax rates differ, and about how 1950s America thrived in part because Europe was devastated by WWII and offered no competition. There was nothing at all explaining 957's idea of a "fair share" of taxes. I'm interested in reading that answer and its justification. I want to see if it's anything more than an empty phrase which he (you?) used to make himself feel better.

506 - Okay. Thanks for letting us know what you think about what I think. Feel free to skip my comments.

Anonymous said...

Brussels-Home base for the EU, Home base for NATO, Home base for Benelux Union, don't check passports at borders, largest jihadist population in Europe and the turn a blind eye to it in name of diversity, and they arrested the mastermind of the Paris attack a few days before the Brussels bombing.

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, the article shows that taxes were significantly higher in the 1950's, both official and effective rates. Not mentioned was the wealth and lifestyle of the middle class thrived and our infrastructure boomed. Taxes build infrastructure and infrastructure builds jobs.

When you're ready to admit that taxes build infrastructure, corporations are raiding our nation's wealth and moving income made by doing business in America offshore to avoid paying tax... let us know. In the meantime the robber barons continue to thrive and complain about taxes as our nation crumbles.

wordkyle said...

925 - Oh my goodness. One assumes that you would cite an article for what it says, not for what's "not mentioned." Also, you seem to miss the entire point of your own citation. Regarding those high tax rates, your article says (and here follows longish passage):

Unfortunately, the tax situation wasn’t what it seemed. The illusion commences with that famous 1950s top rate of 91 percent. Official rates matter, but so do effective rates, the percent of income that people actually pay in tax....
Marc Linder, a law professor at the University of Iowa, suggests the real effective tax rate for millionaires was 49 percent in 1953. The effective rate dropped throughout the decade, reaching 31 percent by 1960. That 31 percent is just slightly higher than the 29 percent level a Congressional Budget Office report figures the average effective tax for the top quintile will be in 2014. And that number for 2014 doesn’t include taxes in Obama’s health-care law....
Joseph Thorndike and Martin Sullivan in Tax Notes magazine...found that those earning more than $100,000 (in the 1950s) paid less than 5 percent of the taxes collected in the U.S., a far smaller share than the wealthiest shoulder today.


There's more along those same lines. The article that you cited says that with today's lower tax rates, the wealthy are paying a higher percentage of all taxes collected. Regardless, you haven't answered what a "fair share" of taxes ought to be. Since you introduced that term yourself, it shouldn't be that difficult for you to explain it.

Anonymous said...

You love building a strawman, don't you? You introduced the "fair" share phrase, not me. I said "your share" of taxes. By their share I mean tax on all income earned in the US, not just what is kept in the US. That means income moved offshore to avoid taxing in the first place. Corporations have been moving offices offshore to dodge paying US tax.

Do you think it's "fair" to earn income by doing business in the US and not pay taxes on it? Should corporations get a free ride? You haven't answered answer those questions.

Now back to the article. It clearly states the fact that tax rates were much higher than they are today which was why I referenced it.

In the 1950s, after all, tax rates were far higher than what the House and Senate have agreed on, a top rate in the high 30 percent range. Back then, they were even higher than what President Barack Obama might have proposed, if left to his own counsel. Republicans in that era went along with the idea that high rates took something away from the rich and thereby stabilized society.

Republican President Dwight Eisenhower’s idea of a significant marginal rate cut was to push the top rate down to 91 percent from 92 percent. Corporate taxes hit 50 percent. Jobs proliferated, wages rose, and the economy prospered. Lately, several documentaries have tried to capture the period, including “Something Ventured,” about how the technology boom got its start.

The implications of this 1950s narrative are clear. High tax rates and the redistribution they might yield can stabilize us now, giving the economy “good directional stability,” to use an industry phrase for a 1950s car, the Nash Metropolitan. High rates can accelerate growth.

Even the staunchest fan of low taxes draws comfort from the 1950s storyline. The official tax rates to which the U.S. now reverts, such as the top income rate of 39.6 percent, still look so much lower than 1950s ones. So maybe the U.S. can thrive and innovate.

Unfortunately, the tax situation wasn’t what it seemed. The illusion commences with that famous 1950s top rate of 91 percent. Official rates matter, but so do effective rates, the percent of income that people actually pay in tax. The Internal Revenue Service reckoned that the effective rate of tax in 1954 for top earners was actually 70 percent.


Over 90%. That's certainly higher than today's rate or are you going to deny it? And this tidbit.

A second fantasy about the 1950s is that government soaked the rich. Joseph Thorndike and Martin Sullivan in Tax Notes magazine took a look at the tax distribution of the decade. They found that those earning more than $100,000 paid less than 5 percent of the taxes collected in the U.S., a far smaller share than the wealthiest shoulder today.

If you calculate the value of $100,000 per year to today's value (so we are comparing apples to apples) it's slightly over $1,000,000 a year. So taxing people earning over $1M is a lot different than those earning $100K.

Anonymous said...

Doris Day, I knew her before she was a virgin.

wordkyle said...

My apologies. When people like you discuss taxes and use the word "share," it's almost always accompanied by the word "fair." I've already said that zero is probably not a good idea. So what percentage of income is a person or company's "share?"

You are citing the original premise that the article then refutes. You even quote it: "Unfortunately, the tax situation wasn’t what it seemed." Of course the tax rates were high, but they didn't matter because nobody paid them. And they were high only at the beginning of the decade. Your article makes the point that tax rates were dropping rapidly, and that much of the economic benefit was that Americans perceived the tax rate's downward direction.

So what I gather from your prattle is that you want tax rates to be high, even if nobody actually pays them. And you don't want tax rates low, even if more people are paying and wealthy people pay a higher percentage of all taxes collected. If that's not accurate, please state your premise.

And we go back to what you think a "share" is. 100%? 50%? 10%? It was a simple question I posed, one which you either didn't understand or which you chose to avoid answering.

Anonymous said...

I understand your strawman, Wordy. Just waiting on you to answer my simple question first, then we can take off on some tangent if you like. I answered your question of "their share" by saying it was on income made by doing business in the US. You still haven't answered the subject of corporations moving profit offshore to avoid taxation.

You also want to take off on another tangent about the article I quoted. I said that it states the rate of taxes in the 1950's were much higher than today. That's what it says, because they were. Is 91% higher than 30%? "People like you" usually have to check with FOX News for the answer.

"People like you" wail about Welfare to the poor, yet say nothing about corporate Welfare. We can't be taxing these poor billion dollar corporations...

wordkyle said...

LOL You are ignoring the entire point of your own article. That "tangent" is what the article's about. I gather that you chose poorly when you cited that article. Do you want to try another one?

As for your avoiding answering my simple initial question, readers will just have to sympathize with how you inadvertently painted yourself into a corner. Exactly how much is one's "share" of taxes? You either don't know, or you don't want to say.

Anonymous said...

Keep veering off the subject and spinning the subject. The point was asked and answered by me (your reading comprehension must be severely lacking). You, however, continue to dodge, dip, dive, duck and dodge the question. Should corporations be allowed to move money earned by doing business in the US offshore to avoid taxation? You can answer this anytime.

wordkyle said...

Sorry, Artful Dodger, after all this you still haven't answered my initial question posed several days and several of your responses ago. You said what you thought should be taxed, but not how much is one's "share" of taxes.

And then you cited an article which refuted the very point you tried to make. I hope you don't use this kind of argument in your day job. If you were an attorney, you'd make a very poor one. Do competent people who know you laugh at you as much as I have?

Anonymous said...

Wordkyle, their share of taxes (for the umpteenth time) is of income made in the US. If they kept that income onshore it would be subject to taxes, hence "their share". You came up with "fair share" then finally had to relent I didn't say that. I reference an article that stated what the tax rate was in the 1950's and you want to discuss the merits of the article rather than it backing the fact taxes were much higher in the 50's.

You want me to set a tax rate (not share). That is a complicated formula and certainly should escalate with income on an inflation based scale. You want me to say 10%, 30%, 50%? It's not that simple to just throw down a number. Well, it may seem that way to you, but it's not. Cutting exemptions and loopholes in the current code would be a good start, like taxing all income made in the US.

You still haven't answered the initial question of "do you think corporations should be allowed to move income offshore to avoid taxes?" I'm pretty sure you're not going to, either. As far as people laughing, I've got a long way to got to reach the numbers that you get on a daily basis.