Guard Dog

Disagree completely. Capitalism is "I want more". Socialism is "I want them to have less". Sanders and Warren are not talking about making the middle class rich. They are talking about making the rich middle class. It's not about building anyone up. Only tearing some people down.

Greed drives you to get things you want and don't have (or have enough of). Envy drives you to want what someone else has. If you want to take things from someone else it's not greed that drives you, it's envy. Without envy socialism is DOA. Greed might lead you to disregard your fellow humans but envy leads to antipathy for them because your wants are satisfied at their expense.

Greed is good. It inspires you to achieve more. It drives the enrichment of the self. Envy breeds discontentment and resentment. It does not make the person who feels it want to improve their lot. Instead it promotes theft. It drives the desire to tear others down rather than help themselves up.

If she gets nominated I'm voting for her. She will be just the second Democrat I will have ever voted for. And the first for President. Probably the last too considering what the Dems are like these days.

Socialism appeals to envy. This person has more than I do and it's not fair! Waaaaaa. Of course it's all a sham anyway. Bernie and Warren can promise the moon but they will never be able to deliver. The AOCs of the world no withstanding Congress is not going to go along with anything so radical as what those clowns are proposing. So it's all just a show.

It's a little inaccurate to say the OAS is a US client organization. Although it's relevance ended with the Cold War it was never really US controlled.

Happy Birthday my brother and to our other brother @ShadySands. Semper Fi.

Since Michael Bloomberg entered the race, or says he was entering, he and Trump have traded barbs. That in itself is proof US politics is akin to professional wrestling. The trash talk, rivalries, and a great deal of the actual contest are staged. Bloomberg and Trump have been associates and even friends after a fashion for years. Trump even called Bloomberg for advice a number of times while putting his administration together. According to what Bloomberg told his biographer Elanor Randolph, it's advice Trump hasn't always followed.

I agree. The partisan preferences of the actors in the little play do no change what is. But they are going to be used as an excuse not to remove him. You have a majority of in the senate who wants nothing more than to maintain the status quo. Doing so is a lot less uncomfortable when they believe they have a justification to do so. They are going to take this one. If you were hoping for ethical actions in the pursuit of justice and the preservation of the Republic you’ve come to the wrong shop. That is not what the federal government is all about. You might get a taste of that next November. But only if this election does not turn out to be another contest to crown the lesser evil. Not looking good so far.

Clinton lost. It didn't play well.

Voting for the lesser evil only elects evil. My vote is only going to go to people worthy of it. To quote John Quincy Adams "Always vote for principle though you vote alone".

I spend almost no time watching cable news. Especially since I don't have DirectTv any more. Or any other service. So what they are talking about with respect to this I don't know. This is just an observation on my part. The Republicans in the Senate do not want to remove him. If they are presented clear evidence unethical and borderline illegal conduct has happened (and hell they have all but admitted he did what he did) then the Senators will have a hard time not removing him. But if the people upon whose testimony the entire case rests don't have clean hands, if they have a partisan axe to grind, if the democrats like Schiff have behaved poorly (he has) that changes everything. That gives the senate republicans a fig leaf to hide behind. It casts even a small shadow of illegitimacy on the whole mess. It gives them an out and an out the desperately want and they are going to take. And makes the whole exercise pointless. But, maybe I just don't know enough about adventures.

I say we go back to horses. You might love your car but it will never love you. A horse however will be your buddy if you treat them well.

Working in Austin Peay today. My last project wraps up today. No more budget and the whole TN government shuts down in two weeks. So the rest of the year becomes an exercise in looking busy. I think I might put together a study on the aquatic life in the Cold Creek/Hatchee River watershed. Translation: Maybe I can go fishing and call it work.

Because a circus can never have too many clowns: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/07/us/politics/michael-bloomberg-president-2020.html Hide your soft drinks.

It's not going to happen. Between Schiff and his antics, the lawyer for the whistleblower and their antics, the closed door hearings that kicked all this off, the partisan preferences that have colored the testimony of those who have already testified, the loose use of words like "resistance" and "coup" before the call to Zelensky even happened, and the media feeding frenzy there is more than enough impropriety for the Senate to hide behind. The fact that Trump actually did what they say he did isn't even relevant now that the waters are so muddy. If anyone is going to "get rid" of Trump it's going to have to be the voters. But if the Democrats are stupid enough to nominate Warren or Sanders even that won't likely happen. Sanders is a fanatic and Warren is Hillary Clinton II (personality wise) with no grasp of economics. That won't play well. Well, I'm not voting for him. But I'm sure as hall not voting for a Democrat unless Gabbard or Bullock somehow get nominated.

Now reading this: It's ok so far. Having trouble getting into it. Not finding Carl to be a particularly compelling character. Also this: A bit more my speed

Now this REALLY sucks!

You just answered your own question!

I want the old Rand Paul back. Like I've been saying he is not his old man. Both in good ways and bad.

OK, I'm about done punching this tar baby. Are you seriously suggesting that the existence (and protection) of private property is an infringement on liberty? If so we have such radically different definitions of that word there is no path foreword. And the seizure of things that are exclusively yours are the #1 thing I complain about when it comes to this subject. And I absolutely want the government out of our lives but also understand that without the existence of a government of some sort then I WILL be shooting everyone who comes down my road. No one wants that.

Exactly why I'll have none of that s--t!

Tangentially related to an earlier post: 8 in 10 Millennials feel they are "not good enough" Do you know what is annoying about them? They are going through the exact same things as everyone who ever lived before them and in their minds it's the first time it's ever happened to anyone! Now get off my lawn!

New gun control case coming to the SCOTUS next year: https://reason.com/2019/08/07/gun-control-cases-to-watch-at-the-supreme-court/?fbclid=IwAR06T_aJ7-whvBO_62dlqSwPLN6Oj1fEjAf9YbO9OI0kzsrZxDOI8OSw2mA The gist of this is the City of New York is refusing to allow the legal transportation of legally owned firearms in the city outside city limits. They CAN be transported within the city under certain circumstances: they must be unloaded and locked in a container and not kept wither their ammunition. Additionally they can only be transported to a authorized shooting range. The requirement to carry unloaded in a locked container is not overly burdensome IMO. Quite a few places have those requirements. However, forbidding the transportation of legal weapons anywhere outside the city IS heave handed. What is it to them what a law abiding citizen does with their private property?