Jump to content

Guard Dog

Members
  • Content Count

    626
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    154

Posts posted by Guard Dog

  1. 20 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

    am agreeing complete. pure transactional and a bit myopic at that. mcconnell got a huge number o' judges installed--lifetime appointments. he also saw trump galvanize the blue collar and white voters who had abandoned republicans a few years earlier and voted for obama.

    mitch criticism o' harry reid and the democrats for their lack o' integrity were as hollow as were the reasoning for delaying merrick garland confirmation. nothing but transactional concerns from mitch.

    @Pidesco

    gonna disagree. mitt stand on impeachment and his marching with blm protesters cost him considerable support at home and with republicans 'cross the nation. recall how medicine dan reacted when we mentioned he-who-shall-not-be-named (mitt romney) earlier in this thread? mitt were marginalized w/i the party to a significant degree which undercut his efforts to author legislation and fundraise. mitt did himself no practical favors and he hurt himself more than a little by standing against trump.

    romney, as we has been told many times by Constitutional scholars over the years, appeared more concerned with his legacy and reputation than immediate transactional gains. romney behaved as we woulda' expected senators to behave and as we were told by hamilton the founders believed they would.

    however, am wondering if mitt woulda' shown so much integrity if he hadn't just won his own reelection and were not needing face the specter o' a primary 'gainst a trump supported candidate in the near future.

    HA! Good Fun!

    I know we disagree on this but the 17th amendment has ruined the Senate.

  2. 2 hours ago, BruceVC said:

    I think that is  definitely  a real possibility and has some really unique advantages  but it could be lonely unless you are fine travelling alone at times which many of us are. Also you wouldn't be a hobo at all ...thats a negative definition of what you would be doing on retirement. I would define it as " a traveler, unburdened by state  borders and  cumbersome definitions of what we call a  home "...the whole of the USA could be your home  ....think of all the amazing things you will witness that you have always wanted to see in the USA?  And you could rent space in many caravan parks\national parks  which could be exactly like a home, that you could return  to if you feel like you need to reconnect with people ,  and you would meet other people who have similar views like you who prefer the open road lifestyle. Also if you have revenue stream, which you will have, you would have  a great quality of life and using an  RV you will save money generally ?

    There are people I have met who live this life and they very happy ..but what about the dogs ?

    Oh Sunny is definitely coming with if I did that. of course in 2026 she would be 17 years old I think so hard to say if she would even still be with me. But if not her somebody will be. The way I figure it if I stay here in my home and continue to do what I’m doing, growing a large part of my own food and generating about half of the power I use I could probably live comfortably on about $20,000 a year. That would be enough to cover the cost of property taxes, miscellaneous groceries and other things, health insurance, veterinarinary costs,  that kind of thing. One thing you have to love about Tennessee is that it’s a red state. Taxes are low in cost of living is pretty easy. So the idea is to generate an income that gets to close to that as possible then I can live without touching my savings which obviously is ideal. my home is paid off, and I have no debts to speak of. That’s a pretty good position to be in. 
     

    now if I go for the gypsy retirement plan obviously $20,000 a year is not going to cut it. So I would have to sell all of the real estate that provides a revenue stream for me because I won’t be around to maintain it. If I sold everything it’s probably a pretty good chunk of money. But if it’s only earning average stock market interest I will likely run out before I croak.Living on the road like that, even modestly, isn’t cheap.
     

  3. I have been working on my retirement planning the past few weeks. Right now the way I figure I plan to retire in five years. 2026 I will be pension eligible at my new job. It would be at the minimum level so we’re not talking a great deal of money but a revenue stream is a revenue stream. 
     

    I did game out one scenario where I sell everything I own. All my real estate holdings including my home. I buy a small RV and hit the road. Live in national park campgrounds, state park campgrounds waffle House parking lots and just go total gypsy. Just roam the country in my last year‘s. It’s actually doable. And the upshot is I would pay almost nothing in taxes if I did this. That appeals to me greatly LOL!

    But, don’t know if the life of a hobo is for me. I love my house and the land it sits on

    • Like 1
  4. 10 minutes ago, Amentep said:

    I actually think it was more Mitch McConnell was getting exactly what he wanted, so what incentive did he have to do anything different? 

    Then he really is a villain because he has been there too long to not know wrong when he sees it. I would much rather he were a coward

    • Like 2
  5. 3 minutes ago, Pidesco said:

    It is not just Guard Dog I've seen recently promoting the idea that America has somehow escaped Trump's shenanigans unscathed. 

    Oh I’m not saying that at all. I’m just saying it could’ve been worse.

  6. My biggest hope for the Trump administration was for Congress to remember that it is Congress, it is coequal, and not beholden to the president. They let me down. When it wasn’t sycophantic subservience it was Ineffectual frowning and flaccid resistance. Yes they effectively checked a few things especially after the Democrats gained control of the house. But they still get my underachiever of the decade award.
     

    Far too much political capital and effort was expended on that hopeless impeachment. Not saying what Trump did did not deserve impeachment. It certainly did. Obstruction of justice will get you charged pretty much anywhere. But they knew they were not going to get a conviction in the Senate. That made it pointless. As Sun Tzu said if a battle cannot be won it shouldn’t be fought. They would have been better served reasserting powers that the executive has usurped over the years like tariffs. They also should have called him out on his “acting“ cabinet positions. That was some banana republic business. But Mitch McConnell has no spine.

    I said a little while back I am very glad that Goldwater and Reagan were not around to see what Trump has done to the Republican party. I’m also glad Tip O’Neill was not around to see the Pelosi Congress.

  7. 5 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

    TBH I got the impression this wasn't as much the case as it should be, and that we saw a little bit of the good old 'if the President does it, it's not a crime.'

    The truth is he didn't really get away with that much. He tried to do a lot of things that were either slapped down in Congress, slapped down in court, or just ignored. Most of what he did do was petty. Petty accomplishments for a petty man. 

    One of my biggest complaints before this undignified election debacle was his usurping abuse of tariff power. That is exclusively a power of Congress. The could have, and SHOULD have stopped him. He did get away with that one. Other s--t like his Muslim ban and his "great big beautiful wall"  were slapped down in court and Congress respectively. In truth the part of the wall he did get was build by misappropriating money Congress designated for something else. Again something a President cannot do and should not have been allowed to get away with. Fun fact that was the heart of the issue of Iran-Contra. The Reagan Admin took money designated for one thing and did something else with it. Something Congress had prohibited. 

    • Like 1
  8. 4 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

    noun

    the person who holds the highest position in a national government:

    It’s arguable that he does not. He holds the highest position in one branch of three that are coequal. Theoretically.

    Now when it comes to dealing with foreign powers the president is definitely the face of the United States. The executive is also the singular agent of the country in matters of foreign policy. But that’s not quite the same thing as what you were thinking

  9. 13 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

    He's the head of state. He represents every single American. He makes decisions that affect all of them, and disproportionately affect the least powerful, like homeless people.

    Sorry buddy I’m represented by a guy name David Kustoff. Nice fella, maybe not the brightest candle in the cathedral but not bad. The President of the United States is just the head of the executive branch of the government. He’s not what you would call a head of state or any kind of representative of the people.

     

    Edit: Grom beat me to it

  10. 2 minutes ago, Chairchucker said:

    IMO the President should have to have been homeless at least once. How... what was the phrase? How can you be the head of something you don't respect or understand?

    Well if we ever amend article two and make the President commander-in-chief of the homeless I’ll agree with you

  11. 1 minute ago, Gromnir said:

    technical this is wrong. trump don't have a doctorate, but biden, harris and pence all have JDs. juris doctorate. in most US jurisdictions it is possible to receive a masters o' law to satisfy the legal education education requirement. is a cheesy doctorate, but a jd is technical a doctorate.

    gary johnson's highest level o' education were, we believe, a bs... not certain though. weld had a jd.

    jorgenson, johnson, cohen and weld did not claim any military service.

    HA! Good Fun!

    That’s right I forgot about that. Johnson and Jorgensen definitely did not serve. As for Cohen in the military? That would be a laugh. It didn’t happen in my platoon but I heard of guys in Boot Camp who broke down crying and ended up washing out during forming week and early in First Phase. That would definitely have been himThat would definitely have been him

  12. We were talking about this a little while back. Actually I think the specific discussion was whether any president ever “dodged“ the draft. I looked it up:

    Let's see,

    • Hoover was a Quaker and never served in the military for religious reasons
    • FDR missed WWI was was SecNav before becoming President. No draft in his day.
    • Truman served in the Army and National Guard as an artilleryman in WWI
    • Eisenhower was a career military man and the Supreme Allied Commander of Europe in WW2
    • Kennedy was a naval officer and PT boat commander in WW2
    • Johnson was too young for WWI and too old for WW2 so he never served but there was no draft.
    • Nixon was a Navy officer and served in the Pacific in WW2
    • Ford was also a Naval Officer and served in the Pacific in WW2.
    • Carter was a Navy man and Submariner. He served in both the Atlantic and Pacific fleets in the '50's
    • Reagan was an enlisted man in the Army when WW2 started. He was later commissioned and served in the Army Air Corps.
    • George HW Bush was a Navy fighter pilot during WW2.
    • Bill Clinton was given draft deferments for college. When his number was coming up he used influence from Democrat Senator William Fullbright to get an ROTC appointment he never reported to. He didn't actually "dodge" the draft. But he came real close to doing it.
    • George W Bush used family influence to get in the Air National Guard.
    • Barack Obama missed all the wars. The draft was over. He never served in the military.
    • Donald Trump got four deferments for college and failed the draft physical during Vietnam.  
    • Like 1
  13. 11 minutes ago, ComradeMaster said:

    The commander in chief is a civilian, there's nothing constitutional about the President and mandatory military service.

    It's like saying that all district attorneys should have to be cops before they become lawyers.

    I didn't say it was Constitutional. I just said it was my opinion.

  14. There is absolutely no way to know Clinton’s level of involvement with Lawrence. Other than to note they were friends. Did Clinton do him a favor here? A phone call from the admin to the Pentagon could easily have gotten him in without too much attention paid to his record and without Clinton’s name attached to it. I don’t know. That is speculation.But as for saying it never happened at all  is like saying “There are no rats in the barn. Oh, except that one”.  
     

    Now I will admit my memory of this whole thing, upon which my first post was entirely based, let me down here. I remember the story, the outrage that came from it and that there was truth in it. Not the specifics. I should have googled before posting not after. It was 23 years ago after all. But let me be clear here my recollections right or wrong are entirely mine. I was no more a fan of talk radio then then I am now. I don’t need someone to read the news to me and tell me what it means. I can formulate my own opinions.
     
     

     

     

    • Like 1
  15. Sure. Of the 69 names we got most of them were a no brainer.  One surely was not. Were there more? Some reputable news sources seemed to think so. No way to know. 
     

    Of course what Trump is doing here, if he is behind this new “proposal” is as bad. Maybe worse because it is self aggrandizement. I think it likely is true.
     

    Edit: Yes I knew Lawrence was gone. 

  16. @Gromnir

    1. Yes. The idea of a permanent military would have upset the framers very much. Madison and Franklin in particular IIRC. This (military service being a prerequisite for the Executive office) is purely my own opinion.
    2. There were 69 waivers granted during Clinton's Term. Not 5. Or at least The Clinton admin released 69 names in 1997 in response to this scandal. But according to the LA Times and Tampa Tribune there were 71 applications. Who were the other 2? No record I could find. I do remember this happening first hand. There was a lot of smoke and I don't mean "right wing radio". The Washington Times was all over it also. The names of the people who received waivers was not released until months after the s--t hit the fan. Before that "privacy" was stated by Army Sec Togo West for why they were kept quiet. Of the 69 names we did  get "only one was a big donor to the DNC" according to the LA Times. Larry Lawrence who was the US Ambassador to Switzerland when he passed away. Before that he was a very successful real estate developer, frequent Democrat fund raiser, donor, and DNC Delegate. Oh yes.... lest we forget in 1994 he got into trouble  with the FEC & IRS for donations to Democrats that exceeded the annual maximums. Now, he did have a case for a waiver because he claimed to serve in the Merchant Marine in WW2. Except, he didn't. He made that all up. He even threw in a story about a U-Boat attack just to spice it up. They could hardly deny Lawrence since he'd been dead and in Arlington a year when this came to light. Now, the two missing names from what the LA Times reported, who they were or if they ever existed is anyone's guess. Maybe It just Lawrence, maybe there were others. You remember Clinton well enough, I'm sure you would not be surprised either way. 
    3. I do not consume "right wing talk radio" in any form. In this case I was going off my own memory. It had to be jogged by a 15 minute or so google session

     

    Edit: Correction, it was the Washington Times, Insight Magazine, the Deseret News, the Tampa Tribune and Fox that reported 71 waiver applications. Not the LA times. It only discussed the 69 that were released in 1997 

  17. Proposal to Allow Non-Veteran Presidential Burials at Arlington Draws Pushback

    There is a pay wall. I read the WSJ though. The gist of it is the Democrats and Vets are in a twist about a proposal coming from the "Pentagon" (meaning Trump indirectly) to permit non-veteran Presidents to be buried with honors in Arlington. Ironic considering his derisive comments about the people buried there. 

    Of course the same goddamned Democrats were mute when Bill Clinton was selling Arlington burials to non-vets as political favors. Politics today though is "it's not wrong if we do it". 

    Personally I think military service should be a requirement to be President. How can you be the commander in chief of something you don't respect or even understand? 

    • Like 2
  18. I came in with KOTOR II. I was around on the old Black Isle forum but only a little. I was in the NWN forums all the time with Volo, Gromnir and others from BI. When I got here and saw a lot of familiar names is was cool. Most are long gone now. 

    What keeps me? Interesting conversation. There is a pretty broad range of opinions here. Half the posters are from outside the USA and that is a plus. I like hearing about what's doing elsewhere. And an ousider's perspective on the US is always interesting. Most forums self segregate into opinion echo chambers or a bomb throwing range. That never happened here. It's pretty rare. 

    • Like 2
    • Thanks 1
  19. Trump considers executive order ending birthright  citizenships 

    there are also a number of stories where people in the CIA and elsewhere are worried that he will reveal some of the nations secrets on his way out of office. Add that to the numerous election challenges that even he knows are now pointless. He appears committed to creating any kind of mischief he can in the time he has remaining even though he knows it is all over. Do you know who this guy is? This is Saruman going to the Shire after being kicked out of Isengard.

    hey I should get some points here for finding a way to associate US politics with lord of the rings.

    • Like 4
    • Haha 2
×
×
  • Create New...