Guard Dog

@ Shady: Now THAT is news to me. The Tsar was Alexander and the only reason I even know that is because the US bought Alaska from him in '67 or '68. I think it was '68 because Johnson caught hell for it. I guess it's possible but I've read a lot of books about that time period and aside from the Alaska purchase never heard of any interactions between either the USA or CSA & the Russian Empire. @ James: I don't spend a lot of time researching facts for formulating arguments here. I thoroughly enjoy conversing with everyone here but if it becomes akin to writing term papers, I think we all have better things to do. So don't be too surprised if I (hopefully only) occasionally post something wrong. I don't hit google before posting unless it's something specific and it can't be avoided. Also I should clarify a rather broad boast I made. I would consider myself an expert in the US Civil War, Reconstruction, and westward expansion. I know a fair but about the "old west", Red Cloud and the Ogala Sioux and the war for the Powder River country. I know a lot about Woodrow Wilson, Teddy Roosevelt, Howard Taft and the 1912 US Election and how it completely f----d up the 20th Century for pretty much everyone. I know a lot about the Great Depression, it's causes and effects, WW2 and it's causes and effects, and a pretty goo general knowledge of everything since. My education was not in history so in college I took the bare minimum of history classes the state of Florida required. The eras and events I listed interest me so I've read a lot of books about them. Now if you want to talk baseball, I know the whole history of that. From the deadball to the modern day I got that down pat! On a side note the Civil War in the Pacific was limited to just one ship, the CSS Shenandoah. It was a raider attacking the US whaling fleet in the Bering Sea. It's actually a pretty good story if you are ever looking for some historical adventure to read: There are several books about it but this was the best IMO. Reads like fiction but was all true. @Bruce: You do have a point that regime change can seem like a valid option because a regime like Mugabe & Maduro in Venezuela (just two examples) cause damage beyond their borders. However, the only way to do that is at gunpoint. People with absolute power are usually not inclined to give it up. There is no such thing as a bloodless invasion. So if international pressure is a waste of time you can either enable a civil war through clandestine means, maybe it works, maybe not, or invade. Well, THAT will work but as we see in Iraq right now you might realize after tens of thousands of people died and billions of dollars spent that you'd have been better off not doing it. What is the appropriate price in human life to achieve a purely optional political objective in another country? It's a shame you never served in the military. It would change how you think about things like that. Military service does not create pacifists. Not at all. But it DOES make you appreciate that fact that when military power is used, people die. A lot of good people die or get permanently f---d up. Some wearing your uniform, some wearing others, and many, many wearing no uniform at all. So the question that needs to be asked is "is this worth people dying?" Sadly that question never gets asked. Because the people in power don't give a s--t. Yet another reason governments should be deprived of a lot of their power.

Sorry. I have less than no desire to go down that rhetorical rabbit hole.

Memory for what that is worth. i'd consider myself something of an expert on US history from 1860 on to today. Admittedly not so much before that.

French involvement came in the form of muskets, powder, shot, and money. And it was integral. But aside from a handful of notable volunteers like L'Enfant and Layfayette French soldiers did not participate. Not the same thing as regime change in the modern world. Like Iraq for example. Of course it would be fair to say French blood was shed BECAUSE of the revolution. Monetary and military aid to the US added to an already desperate economic crisis that was one of the root causes to the French revolution. A far nastier and bloodier mess than we had to deal with.

Some people equate the words freedom and democracy. They shouldn't. Not the same things. If you have the latter you probably get the former. But not necessarily. The USSR was "democratic" in that it held elections, even if they were not a sham the opportunity to choose your leaders does not make you free. There is a school of thought that the actions of a duly elected legislative body can't be illegal because the very act of electing them gives them the mandate of the people. Nothing could be father from the truth. Slavery for example was legal and popular and democratically mandated and because of it people were not free. So even if there is a democratic process he end result is not always freedom. As far a regime change goes, IMO that is solely the responsibility of the people under the regime. No one else. The Colonists did not ask the French or Spanish to fight the Brits for them, they lined themselves up in Lexington MA on a hot April morning with muskets in hand. I would not trade on drop of American blood to change any government on this Earth no matter how vile it may be. Not. Our. Responsibility. And if history has taught us anything such an action usually leaves the people of those countries fewer, worse off, and very ungrateful.

He had a good hiding spot. He looks fine.

How does that work compared to a real smoker?

Tusli Gabbard gave a very non-democrat campaign message last week: https://www.bigislandvideonews.com/2019/07/04/gabbard-campaign-message-lets-take-patriotism-back/ Well, that's that. She is a true "enemy of the people" now. Democrats don't believe in any of that. Not for everyone at least.

Then you, sir, are not my friend!

I imagine there are a few good reasons. He's making a lot of hay by pointing out the corrosive effects of partisan party politics. To jump into another party would undermine whatever juice he's gotten from that. Also the LP is highly dysfunctional and has very little help to offer candidates to be worth the affiliation. They CAN help with ballot access and the like but he's an incumbent and in the news right now. So there is little they can do for him to be worth the detriments that LP affiliation brings. And there are detriments. Believe me.

OK, that's all I've got

My kind of girl

Oh my God! MST3K is on NetFlix???? Why the heck didn't you all tell me this??? What good are you people? It's not all of it... but they are making new ones! Suddenly life has meaning again!

Rep Justin Amash has left the Republican Party: https://www.cnn.com/2019/07/04/politics/justin-amash-leaving-gop/index.html Can't blame him. I did the same thing myself. Or, more accurately, it left us.

I never go out on July 4th. I don't want to leave my dogs alone, but then that's true of every other day. Fireworks are a non-issue where I live. The nearest town with a display is over twenty miles ( 30 KM give or take) and with just one other house within a mile of me I would barely hear gunshots let alone fireworks. I don't go out because I hate crowds and these things tend to draw a lot of people. Besides.... feels like a NetFlix kind of day anyway.

In JFK's case it was his inauguration rather than July 4th. I don't recall any celebrations out of the ordinary for Independence day during his term. During the Bicentennial in Ford's term there was supposed to be but he cancelled that part of it himself IIRC. People were sick of war after ten yeas in Vietnam. They wouldn't do anything like that again until 1993 or 1994 (I think the latter) when Clinton asked for flyovers during the celebrations on the mall. I DO remember him being criticized by Republicans for doing it. Please, contain your irony! During Eisenhower's term in 1955 there was a big celebration of the 10 year anniversary of the end of WW2 which included a "military parade" but that was not the 4th either. During the second term of FDR there was a silly little holiday called Army Day that included parades. I think it was to commemorate our entry into WWI. The date was the same, April 6th. Not sure his reasoning. I'm going from memory here. Truman scuttled that. Army Day is not to be confused with Armed Forces Day which it little more than open houses an shows on military bases. Oh, and an opportunity to sell cars because it's one of those days you forget about until the local Toyota dealer takes out a full page ad in the paper.

I was upset there for a moment... until I saw it was Jim Beam.

So there seems to be a great wailing and gnashing of teeth over the "unprecedented" parade of military assets in DC. It's anything but unprecedented. Eisenhower, JFK, Clinton and everyone between Wilson & Hoover did it. Heck in JFK's inauguration parade the towed and honest to God ICBM in the procession. So it is certainly tacky it's hardly unprecedented. But is sucks for the luckless service members who catch this little s--t detail: https://forums.obsidian.net/topic/104780-political-thread-xx/?do=findComment&comment=2087668

Maybe they didn't tell him. He strikes me as the kind of boss you work around rather than with.

If you value liberty and economic opportunity you don't usually look for good things out of Oregon. This time they surprised me. They are relaxing zoning restriction by eliminating the "single family home" designation for new construction. The bill they ended up passing strikes me as pretty smart. Some of the earlier versions were VERY onerous. In the early stages they were going to "require" new construction be multi-family. Sometimes big government can't help itself. But what they went with makes it optional. https://reason.com/2019/07/01/oregon-becomes-first-state-to-ditch-single-family-zoning/

The "media" and the Democrat Party have it's list of acceptable candidates. Gabbard in not on that list right now. Primarily because the name recognition isn't there (yet) but also as a little payback for not being a team player in '16. When you watch the debates and press coverage in between Biden, Harris, Warren, and Sanders are sucking all the oxygen out of the room. Buttigege (I will never be able to spell that guy's name right) is on the outside looking in. The rest are going to be pressured to drop out before Iowa even happens. Which is a shame because Gabbard is likely the best of that bunch.