Morning Report: Good numbers out of the builders 4/21/16

Markets are flattish after the European Central Bank declined to initiate further stimulus measures. Bonds and MBS are down.

The Chicago Fed National Activity Index fell slightly in March as the economy continues to grow slightly below trend.

Initial Jobless Claims printed below  250k last week, The last time we saw an initial jobless print below 250k? Late 1973. For all the fears of mass layoffs in the oil patch, we aren’t seeing evidence of it in the jobless numbers.

The FHFA House Price Index rose 0.4% in February, according to the FHFA House Price Index. Prices are up 5.6% overall. The index, which only looks at a subset of the housing market, has surpassed its bubble highs. The West Coast markets continue to be the hottest, while New England continues to bring up the rear.

In other economic news, the Philly Fed manufacturing index fell, while the index of leading economic indicators improved. Consumer comfort fell.

Homebuilder PulteGroup reported better than expected earnings this morning. Revenues increased 28%, while backlog rose 31%. Average selling prices rose 9%. The CEO characterized the housing market this way: “Looking to the broader housing market, we remain pleased with overall demand and expect new home sales will continue to move higher over the coming years as the industry benefits from an improving economy, ongoing employment and wage gains, low interest rates, a limited supply of homes and the gradual release of pent-up demand, We believe our business is extremely well positioned to be successful in this type of operating environment given our disciplined investment practices and focus on investing in high returning projects.”

We also heard from D.R. Horton this morning, who also put out better-than expected numbers. Revenues increased 16%, while backlog increased 14%. D.R. Horton is up about 80 cents a share this morning. They took up guidance for the year, which means perhaps the slowdown in the energy sector is not affecting their geographies. DHI has a lot of Texas exposure.

Millennials may want to buy a home, but they are not saving enough for a downpayment. The article assumes a 20% downpayment is required, and doesn’t mention FHA loans, which only require 3.5% down. If journalists aren’t aware that you don’t need 20% down, it means the industry still has some more educating to do.

59 Responses

  1. Frist!

    Wow–that turned out bigger than I expected. . .

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It’s not often I would recommend Vox for any reason other than to mock it, but today is one of those rare days.

    http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11451378/smug-american-liberalism

    There is a smug style in American liberalism. It has been growing these past decades. It is a way of conducting politics, predicated on the belief that American life is not divided by moral difference or policy divergence — not really —but by the failure of half the country to know what’s good for them.

    In 2016, the smug style has found expression in media and in policy, in the attitudes of liberals both visible and private, providing a foundational set of assumptions above which a great number of liberals comport their understanding of the world.

    It has led an American ideology hitherto responsible for a great share of the good accomplished over the past century of our political life to a posture of reaction and disrespect: a condescending, defensive sneer toward any person or movement outside of its consensus, dressed up as a monopoly on reason.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I actually listen to their podcast called The Weeds which is Ezra Klein, Matt Yglesias, and Sarah Kliff doing deep wonky dives into issues. Every now and then they go off on some so totally wrong tangent that I want to to reach into my iPod and strangle them, but that is part of the entertainment value.

      Like

    • The sort of blind faith that Vox has in government is amusing:

      “End recessions by eliminating paper money.

      The old conventional wisdom in economics was that monetary policy could always end a recession by cutting interest rates. Then people remembered the “zero bound” problem — you can’t cut interest rates below zero, because people can always hold onto cash which pays no interest. This turns out to not quite be true, but physical currency still puts a limit on how low interest rates can go.

      Without paper money, the Fed could arrange things so money in your bank account would literally disappear over time if not spent. People would then have no choice but to rush out and try to buy durable goods (cars, home repairs, furniture) as the next-best means of saving. That increase in economic activity would spur hiring and reduce unemployment until the Fed started to raise rates again to cool things down and prevent inflation from getting out of hand.

      Totally eliminating paper money would have some potentially dire consequences for privacy, but would also conceivable allow us to eliminate recessions altogether.”

      http://www.vox.com/2016/4/21/11477568/20-bill-harriet-tubman-party-alexander-hamilton

      I’m sure that there would be no unintended consequences of the government deciding to “delete” money from people’s bank accounts to spur them to spend. A better way to drive the adoption of Bitcoin, I can’t think of.

      Like

  3. Prince is dead… What a shitty year for musician deaths…

    Like

  4. Back to linking to Vox for the normal reasons. On the placing of Harriet Tubman on the $20 bill:

    “What we’re basically talking about right now,” he said in the above video, “is honoring the work Harriet Tubman did to free us from slavery by putting her face on the reason we were in slavery.”

    The fact that Jackson will remain on the bill with Tubman shows America still shares a lot of this legacy today.

    Huh?

    http://www.vox.com/identities/2016/4/20/11473818/harriet-tubman-jay-smooth-20

    Like

    • Why is the concept of exchange so upsetting to Progressives?

      Like

      • McWing:

        Why is the concept of exchange so upsetting to Progressives?

        In general I think that Progressives have an instinctive disbelief of the fact that the natural state of man is hand-to-mouth poverty, and so they cannot get their heads around the idea that wealth doesn’t simply exist but is instead created. Hence, they instinctively believe that any exchange in which one side appears to derive more benefit than the other is, necessarily, exploitative and that the benefit derived must have come at the expense of the other side.

        For those few progressives (like Krugman) who presumably do grasp fundamental economic reality, I think the problem is an overriding arrogance. It isn’t so much that they find the idea of exchange upsetting, but rather than they think most people are too stupid to know what kind of exchange is best, and so need to be both protected and directed by those who are much smarter, namely themselves.

        Like

    • “The fact that Jackson will remain on the bill with Tubman shows America still shares a lot of this legacy today.
      Huh?”

      Huh, indeed. Who is represented on a piece of currency says demonstrates what again? Is that scientific? Does Washington on both quarter and dollar demonstrate that we, as have a station, still share a legacy of wooden teeth and periwigs?

      Vox is so often vacuous.

      Facebook commentary on the Vox article on Smug Liberalism was predictable–shouldn’t we call fascists out? Of course we mock them, conservatives are all idiots! Etc. Basically, proving the point.

      My dispute with the article would be that it is unusual or new in some way, or that it is anything but a manifestation of human nature. Certain media, like 24 hour news and the Internet, have made it more generally visible and more palpable. It’s one thing to have a conversation with one person who thinks your an idiot for not being their clone, quite another to be bombarded by online commentary where everybody seems to be having the same “original” thought that those they disagree with are suspiciously like Nazis. The amount of smugness humanity is capable of seems almost unlimited, and is not remotely limited to politics. The debates on many movie sites tend to the same sort of smugness, to the point where if you like or dislike a certain movie you are an idiot, or a monster, or what’s wrong with the world today.

      The idea that people have good, if sometimes personal, reasons for their beliefs does not manifest much in the political commentary on the Internet, or at partisan blogs, but I think it’s more a manifestation of human tribalism and cliquishness. It’s not something that ideologues just started accidentally doing to console themselves when they lost. Progressives and liberals having been losing and winning battles since they existed, and vice-versa.

      Like

      • KW:

        My dispute with the article would be that it is unusual or new in some way, or that it is anything but a manifestation of human nature.

        Sure it is a part of human nature, but it makes sense to me that people who tend to exhibit that part of human nature more than others will also tend to be more ideologically left. After all, if you think that huge swaths of people are too stupid to know what is good for either themselves or society, are you more likely to advocate for centralizing control of things into the hands a few “experts”, or are you more likely to advocate for decentralizing control of things into as many hands as possible?

        I may be a bit of an outlier. I tend to agree that huge swaths of people are too stupid to know what is good for either themselves or society, but being the asshole that I am I would rather leave them to their own devices and let them suffer the consequences. Hence both my libertarianism and my advocacy of true federalism.

        Like

        • @scottc1: “who tend to exhibit that part of human nature more than others will also tend to be more ideologically left”

          Well, that’s certainly common on the left (although I’ve seen many on the right ridicule the intelligence of liberals, Obama, etc., though I can’t think of any piece in National Review discussing how science proves liberals are naturally more fearful and stupid than conservatives) I think many liberals are pre-disposed to a belief in hierarchy and expertise. It’s not necessarily that people are stupid and cannot be allowed to govern their own lives, it’s just that life is very complex, no single person can be an expert on everything, and everybody doing whatever they wanted would be chaos. Which at some level is true, and most people would agree that basic traffic laws have value, but there is a divergence on both what requires the beneficent guidance of government and to what degree daily life should be micromanaged.

          Added to that, there is often a wide divergence between the experience of embracing heavy government regulation or control in principal and experiencing it directly. I have found there are a large number of people who support things in the abstract because they cost of that support will not be borne by them in any meaningful way, or at least they don’t believe it will be. Thus, I think a great deal of liberals support big government in the abstract, but less so when it applies to them. Good for thee, but not for me!

          I note that a lot of the “conservatives/liberals are idiots” involves a great deal of extrapolation and very little fine detail in terms of policies and consequences and costs and benefits. That is, if Republicans and conservatives generally oppose the latest clean water bill, they are idiots, they want children to drink poison water, they want lead in the water, they like pollution, they don’t care what kind of planet they leave for the children, they hate children (once born) and women and are all Nazis.

          There’s not a lot of discussion about the details. The cost of it, the actual benefits of it, the expected outcomes versus where we are today (remember the arsenic-in-the-water thing? Republicans want arsenic in the water! . . . as if there had never been arsenic in the water supply, and they were wanting to put arsenic into the water). Even less is there any honest discussion as to why it is government’s role to create this regulation, to appropriate these resources, or otherwise step in and meddle in the affairs of states and the affairs of individuals. Instead, everybody is just evil or an idiot.

          Alas, I do not think small government conservatives are represented in government in any meaningful way, so there’s no real philosophical battle over policy, just battles over turf. This seems to favor and ever-growing government, ultimately, as the argument between Democrats and Republicans seems to be mostly about who gets to grow government, how much, and in what way.

          While there is a problem of “my party/ideology, right or wrong” on both sides, I think the bias towards governmental solutions is more pronounced on the Democratic/left side of the aisle. There isn’t a business tax, a regulation, an environmental restriction, a minimum wage hike, or whatever that’s a bad idea. It’s all good, and it’s all a matter of life and death that whatever proposed legislation or rule change becomes mandatory immediately, or people will die.

          At least there is, occasionally, some philosophical push back on the right. Not enough, as we still end up with the Department of Homeland Security, Medicare Part D, No Child Left Behind, and local expansions of legal micromanagement that perhaps has other goals, such as the recent bathroom kerfuffle (perhaps necessitated, in the minds of advocates, by the insistence that transgendered folks get to use the bathroom of their chosen gender . . . ) or the oft-cited on the left example of the requirement that ultrasound be performed on women seeking an abortion . . . when the expansion of government power or regulation is for the right moral reasons, there’s generally a lot of support for it on the right. And one just has to look at the budgets submitted by Republican congresses and Republican presidents (not to mention the cost of certain military adventurism) to see that, politically, left and right in this country are now primarily about growing different branches of the government tree, and doing precious little to prune back what the other side has done.

          Eh, I could ramble on. Sufficed to say, I think it would be better if most people on both sides could acknowledge that there are good reasons, and often well-thought-out reasons, for positions on each side, and that neither their opponents or the constituents of their opponents are purely idiots or purely evil, and then argue over the details and possible outcomes honestly. I would also like a Unicorn and to find a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

          End of line.

          Like

  5. @kevinwillis1

    That is some serious trolling of our Vietnamese friend you’ve got going on! 😀

    Like

    • I think he may read them (or maybe not). I know he plonked me one day and has thus far never seemed to directly reply to anything. So I’m assuming I’m ignored and provide my commentary for the rest. 😉

      Liked by 1 person

  6. An excellent example of the incoherent double-speak used by politicians posing as judges in order to implement their preferred policies, despite those policies being contrary to law.

    http://pdfserver.amlaw.com/nlj/GLOUCESTER_CA4_20160420.pdf

    The Fourth Circuit has reversed a district court dismissal of a lawsuit under Title IX by a transgender boy (ie a female who thinks she is a male) who sued the Gloucester County School Board in order to be allowed access to the boys bathrooms and locker rooms. Although the Fourth Circuit acknowledges that Title IX explicitly refers to sex, and not gender, discrimination and also explicitly allows the separation of the sexes with regard to bathroom and locker room facilities, it claims that the regulation is still “ambiguous” because:

    Although the regulation may refer unambiguously to males and females, it is silent as to how a school should determine whether a transgender individual is a male or female for the purpose of access to sex-segregated restrooms. We conclude that the regulation is susceptible to more than one plausible reading because it permits both the Board’s reading— determining maleness or femaleness with reference exclusively to genitalia—and the Department’s interpretation—determining maleness or femaleness with reference to gender identity.

    This is pure, unadulterated sophistry.

    The concept of “gender identity” is defined as being a distinct and separate thing from biological sex. And a transgender person is defined as someone who’s self-image is the opposite of what their actual sex is. A “transgender boy” is, by definition, a female. Otherwise he would not be a transgender boy, he would be simply a boy. Therefore, it is quite literally incoherent to suggest, as the Fourth Circuit has done, that maleness or femaleness could ever be determined by “gender identity”. To be meaningful at all, the notion of “gender identity” must necessarily mean “not biological sex”.

    This is a great example of how jurisprudence has ceased to be any attempt to understand the meaning of a law and faithfully applying it, and has become nothing more than an exercise in linguistic and conceptual gymnastics in order to justify making the law mean whatever the judge would like it to mean.

    Like

    • “Although the Fourth Circuit acknowledges that Title IX explicitly refers to sex”

      then what’s the issue. the law is not ambiguous.

      Like

        • what a fucking pant load.
          that doesn’t demonstrate a spectrum. it demonstrates genetic abnormality.

          Like

        • Not even abnormality, chimericism will be discovered to be incredibly common. Also, Identifying suspects through DNA will be discovered to be not as reliable and foolproof as once thought.

          Like

        • nova:

          that doesn’t demonstrate a spectrum. it demonstrates genetic abnormality.

          How dare you stigmatize something as “abnormal”.

          Anyway, so climate science is “settled” and, as McWing often notes, rock-fucking-solid. The science of what constitutes a male or a female however, is “blurry”. You gotta hand it to the left…they have chutzpah.

          Liked by 1 person

        • yello:

          But the science might be.

          There is a difference between a particular individual’s biological sex being ambiguous and the science of biological sex being ambiguous. What constitutes a male or a female can be clear, even if it is unclear whether a specific person is one or the other.

          Like

        • Mark:

          Volokh on school rest rooms in the 4th Circuit:

          Thanks. I wish he had provided his thoughts rather than just summarizing the opinions.

          The dissent seems to have missed the most obvious reason that the majority ruling is wrong, and indeed not even coherent. The claim that the statute is “ambiguous” rests on the majority’s claim that:

          Although the regulation may refer unambiguously to males and females, it is silent as to how a school should determine whether a transgender individual is a male or female for the purpose of access to sex-segregated restrooms.

          It is not silent on this issue, because, of course, if we know that an individual is “transgender”, then whther they are male or female must have already been determined.

          Like

        • I have personally encountered a massive chip on the shoulder of several transgendered persons I have dealt with.

          My polite attempt: “I don’t know whether to address you as ‘sir’ or ‘ma’am'”, has often been met with a dagger stare. However, the twins’ opthalmologist, who has been transitioning male to female, just smiles and says “call me doctor!”.

          Volokh’s point about showers is worth attending because it is an obvious bright line that raises the constitutional cases on male and female boundaries of privacy from governmental intrusion. It is important to note that no constitutional issue was raised in this case, and I think the “privacy” cases dictate that as a constitutional matter, when that arises, the penis/vagina distinction will hold. A public HS will not be able to force people-who-look male and people-who-look-female to the same gym class showers.

          Remember that this was not a public accommodation case, but a case of government imposition – tried, I think, on the wrong theory, by the wrong parties.

          Like

        • It’s not about accommodating trannies, it’s about forcing every knee to bend.

          Liked by 1 person

        • Mark:

          Remember that this was not a public accommodation case, but a case of government imposition – tried, I think, on the wrong theory, by the wrong parties.

          I understand, but even on its own terms, it seems to me the decision makes no sense at all. The idea that there can be some ambiguity about, or confusion over, the sex of a transgender person is literally nonsensical.

          Like

        • The idea that there can be some ambiguity about, or confusion over, the sex of a transgender person is literally nonsensical.

          I am more sympathetic to the confusion idea than you are.

          I am often confused by what I see and hear from androgynous persons; whether they identify as transgendered, or male, or female. Assuming one calls itself transgendered, I would think there would be no legal confusion about its physical status at the beginning or the end of a transitioning process, but there could be, in between. And I am talking about my confusion about them, never mind whatever confusion they have about themselves.

          For whom is determining the sex of a transgender person not confusing? I am guessing for someone who maintains the notion that one’s DNA is the sole determinant of sex, and therefore gender. That’s not an implausible position, but it is certainly not a practical one, nor a political one, in the best sense of that word. Denying sane people their innermost thoughts about themselves is the ultimate in government over-reach. As a legal/political matter, in the good sense, the idea is not to force transgendered persons into some depersonalized hell, where government says you must be what we say you are. However, we must keep in mind the privacy rights about sex and the genders that have long been part of the legal and political structure. These should take precedence in a conflict.

          At the purely physical level, George mentioned chimera. There are cases of male-female twin absorption chimera reported on the internet. I haven’t checked out the medical journals, for verification, but if true, there you have the potential of DNA confusion, as well. Just an interesting side note, where all the humans involved are certain but the DNA is not.

          Like

        • Mark:

          I am often confused by what I see and hear from androgynous persons; whether they identify as transgendered, or male, or female.

          We are not talking about confusion over whether a person is or is not transgender. We are talking about confusion over the sex of someone who has already been identified as transgender. Your or my inability to know, by sight, whether or not person A is transgender has no bearing at all on whether we can know the sex of someone who has already been identified as transgender.

          For whom is determining the sex of a transgender person not confusing?

          It ought not be confusing for anyone. A transgender boy is, by definition, a female. The very fact of their femaleness is precisely what makes them “transgender”. If they were not female, then they would simply be a “boy” and not a “transgender boy”. Likewise a transgender girl is, by definition, a male, for the same reasons. This is very straight forward. The sex of the transgender boy who brought the suit was not in question. “He” is a female, which is precisely why “he” was identified as a “transgender boy”, and not simply a “boy”. There is nothing unclear or ambiguous about any of this.

          I am guessing for someone who maintains the notion that one’s DNA is the sole determinant of sex, and therefore gender.

          One’s DNA is the sole determinant of sex. There is no other determinant, although there are physical attributes that are highly correlated with sex and so can generally be relied upon as a determinant. I don’t think there is any real controversy over that fact. What the transgender movement claims is that the notions of sex and gender are two different things, so knowing one’s sex is not an indicator of gender.

          Denying sane people their innermost thoughts about themselves is the ultimate in government over-reach.

          Well, your presumption of sanity is not necessarily justified. And whether or not people with gender dysphoria strictly qualify as not sane, I would argue that the government actively indulging someone’s psychological problems by playing along with the pretense that they are something they are not is at the very least questionable.

          But that aside, given all the areas of life into which the federal government routinely intrudes, and the massive size of the federal regulatory bureaucracy, calling a local school bathroom policy requiring a girl who thinks she is a boy to use either the girls room or a single stall bathroom “the ultimate in government overreach” strikes me a lacking a certain amount of perspective.

          As a legal/political matter, in the good sense, the idea is not to force transgendered persons into some depersonalized hell, where government says you must be what we say you are.

          Two points. First, a bathroom policy separating biological males from biological females is not even remotely an instance of government telling someone “you must be what we say you are”.

          Second, the issue before the Fourth Circuit (and about which I was objecting) was not whether or not the school’s policy is the most preferable policy or the most sensitive to the needs of transgender people. It was whether or not it was prohibited by Title IX. The answer to that questions lies not in how one thinks transgender people should be treated, but rather lies in the text of the actual statute.

          Like

        • Mark:

          You may be interested in this, from the American College of Pediatricians:

          http://www.acpeds.org/the-college-speaks/position-statements/gender-ideology-harms-children

          Human sexuality is an objective biological binary trait: “XY” and “XX” are genetic markers of health – not genetic markers of a disorder. The norm for human design is to be conceived either male or female. Human sexuality is binary by design with the obvious purpose being the reproduction and flourishing of our species…

          Like

        • Re: ACP position

          That is a very compelling statement and one I take so seriously that I will not offer any further uninformed opinion about this subject.

          Like

        • Mark:

          I linked to it mainly as support for my assertion that DNA is the sole determinant of sex.

          But the subject that interests me most is not how trans issues should be treated politically, but rather the legal opinion of the Fourth, and whether Title IX can sensibly be said to require that the sex of a transgender person be determined by their “gender identity”. I think such a claim is literally incoherent.

          Like

      • nova:

        then what’s the issue. the law is not ambiguous.

        Exactly. But they wanted it to be ambiguous, so they engaged in some sophistry in order to pretend that what “sex” means is ambiguous.

        Like

    • Trump scholarship has even leapfrogged the Atlantic. Studies of the celebrity-turned-politician and what he means for American policy and politics have emerged from universities in Iceland, Norway and the United Kingdom. A blog post by Mercieca was translated into German under the title: Die rhetorische Brillanz des Demagogen Trump. During a lecture on U.S. history earlier this month at Bjorknes College in Oslo, international studies professor Hilde Eliassen Restad asked a room full of her undergraduates to name 10 things they knew about America. Before mentioning guns, obesity, Hollywood and House of Cards, the students named Trump.

      Man, I can’t imagine a better resume enhancement for a presidential candidate. If he’s not some kind of genius, he’s an idiot savant. And we’ve definitely had worse in the White House.

      “The way you study psychology is by looking at deviants,” he said. “You don’t look at normal people. You look at deviant people. And Trump is clearly a deviant politician.”

      That guy knows words. He has the best words. Seriously, that sounds like something Trump might say about psychology. The way you study psychology is be looking at deviants? You just ignore the vast majority of normal people with normal psyches?

      McWing, did you get the impression that the perhaps unintentional subtext of this article is that Trump proves academic analysis of politics is largely worthless? They have all these people saying, in some form or fashion, Trump’s breaking the mold and it’s working and it shouldn’t, everything says that it shouldn’t, but it is? Isn’t it fascinating that we said all these things make up the political process and Trump is proving us wrong?

      Like

      • I agree with your assessment to the extent that it’s another way to succeed politically, in addition to the other ways. That poli sci’s feel like it’s a new way is what’s fascinating.

        I knew this summer that Trump was going to be the nominee when I saw a week’s worth of bits about Trump, his campaign and family on Entertainment tonight.

        Liked by 1 person

  7. Collier said, recounting how she spoke with 20 people at the rally and was surprised that nearly all described themselves as independents. Only one acknowledged plans to actually vote for Trump. Her paper is due by the end of April for a seminar on qualitative research methods; after she gets feedback from her professor and classmates, she hopes to submit it for publication. But she’s already reached one conclusion: Trump is drawing on a more centrist crop of voters that may help explain the dramatic increase in overall Republican primary turnout.

    Ayuh. And it may turn out that way in the general. Which was why I was advising some libs on PL to be careful what they wished for when they kept hoping and praying Trump would win the nomination, because then the Democrats could run a bag of garbage and win.

    The human ability to predict such things is generally pretty poor. We may be able to call it reasonably well in November, but before? No. And by then, it will be too late: too many Democrats will have already crossed over and voted for Trump and been excited that he might win the nomination because he would be the easiest candidate to beat.

    No, no, no. That would have been Jeb! or Kasich or definitely Christie. I think Trump outperforms all of them in the general, including Cruz, should he get the nomination. There’s no way to test that theory, but if I could, I’d bet $5 on it.

    This is also why I think many on the left are freaking out, especially those that pay attention. They realize Trump is attracting independents and non-voters, not just likely voters or Reagan Democrats.

    He’s also looking for additional funding to study the prospect for violence during the general election, research that he hopes will get traction because of what’s been happening at the Trump rallies. “People should have been reading our applications as the violence was erupting,” he said. “Hopefully they realize this is timely and serious.”

    Oh noes! Giant rallies that attract thousands of people also attract at least a few assholes, one of whom might throw a punch at someone because they are an asshole! It’s the end times, people!

    Everything I read like this kind of makes me hope Trump will win. I’m still voting for Gary Johnson, because I know damned good and well if Trump wins the nomination he’ll win Tennessee in the general. But I’m not going to shed a single tear if Trump wins, despite the fact he doesn’t have a history of being a great executive (he’s the kind of dude I hate to work for) and I suspect he’s not going to be particularly conservative at the end of the day.

    Like

  8. What a load of horseshit.

    http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/7096296/Barack-Obama-says-US-has-stake-in-Brexit-vote-because-of-WWII.html

    Ooooh, he’s all “Don’t call my bluff Eric.”

    My favorite part,

    ““You can’t say on the one hand that Britain and America’s special relationship is as strong as ever and it always will be, and on the other hand say if you don’t take my advice then you will be at the back of the queue.””

    You don’t say?

    “And he also admitted that uncontrolled migration into Europe was “a national security issue”.”

    Who knew he’s a fascist?

    Liked by 2 people

  9. Dr. Ann Reed, chairwoman of rheumatology research at the Mayo Clinic, who uses sensitive DNA tests to look for chimerism, finds that about 50 to 70 percent of healthy people are chimeras.

    If true, and I think it is, it hurts Mark’s argument.

    http://mobile.nytimes.com/2005/05/10/health/cheating-or-an-early-mingling-of-the-blood.html?referer=

    Like

    • Hillary’s response: “Not interested in endorsements from people who deny climate science and try to make it harder for people to vote.”

      Translation: please spend money campaigning against me.

      An interesting strategy.

      Like

  10. Like

    • The progressive view often seems to be that the only losers will be rich businessmen who won’t lose that much. Other people won’t be losers because if they lose their job or their health insurance, the government well step in and make everything better.

      Like

Be kind, show respect, and all will be right with the world.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: