Guard Dog

It's a nerve wracking time of year here next to the mighty Mississippi. It's way up out of it's banks. That means the tributaries like the Hatchee & Lauderdale rivers are out of their banks. That means Cold Creek is out if it's banks and encroaching on my back yard. I seriously doubt it will reach the house. It never has and all the data suggests the river has crested. The downside is I'll be buying a few truckloads of fill dirt and renting a Bobcat to fix the erosion. The upside is if I want to go fishing I don't have to walk so far.

We're hurtling towards a point where our entire civilization as we know it is going to collapse in a few decades. I get it, you're not concerned, you'll be dead by then, but could you please not mischaracterize the irresponsibility that is probably going to cost thousands, if not millions of lives in the future as "disagreeing with the Federal Government"? For the purposes of discussion I wll take no position on veracity of climate change being caused by humans. We are talking solely about facing criminal charges for publicly stating the Federal Governments position is wrong. If it is, or isn't is irrelevant. They are discussing criminal charges for a contrary opinion. What do YOU think the penalty for that should be? Life in prision? Death? If our civilization is going to collapse it will happen far sooner from the hubris of a government that so believes itself infallible as to enforce the notion at gunpoint than from carbon emissions.

Another glorious chapter in the (in Obama's own words) the "fundamental transformation" of the United States from a prosperous and free country into one that is neither. It is apparently illegal now to disagree with the Federal Government. Our illustrious attorney general Loretta Lynch is referring over to the FBI instances of climate change denial uttered in public by energy sector officials. And this miserable Congress Cretin is encouraging her to go even further. I wonder what the criminal charge would be? Thoughtcrime? http://www.mrctv.org/videos/ag-lynch-doj-has-discussed-whether-pursue-legal-action-against-climate-change-deniers-0

One that has zero interest in the source material clearly. Now bearing in mind I've only read the books (years and years ago) and gave up after season 1 but even I can think of at least three major problems with that stupid plot line. 1. Why would Littlefinger sell the last remaining Stark, his ticket to the North, plus his surrogate Catelyn to some deranged lunatic? 2. Ramsay was meant to marry Jeyne Pool posing as Arya - having it literally be Sansa is stupid because Sansa was perceived to be an enemy of the state and in cahoots with a kingslayer (Tyrion). 3. This ****s up Sansa's plot. Her time with Littlefinger was meant to show her hardening as a character and beginning to understand how to 'play' the Game of Thrones. Instead she's subject to yet another season of being tortured by some psychopath. How exciting. 1) I agree. His actions in the books, makes a lot more sense. 2) Agreed 3) Agreed

@Calax: Thanks I hadn't seen that one in a while. There is a grain of truth in it, but the analogy is not all together accurate. Obama wasn't a socialist. If he was any "ist" at all I'd call him a corporatist but that does not fit him well either. What he was, about which there is not dispute to my thinking, is a political leader who posessed no respect. He had no respect or regard for the Constitution of the United States, the limitations of his office, the decorum and leadership his office demands, or the individual rights and liberties of the citizens of the country he was elected to lead. In my book those sins are black enough that no "ist" is required.

No we know how it works. We just like to laugh at stuff.

Report back to us on your findings.

If some enterprising soul would plow up some of those wheat fields and plant yellow corn they could fix the bourbon deficiency and make a killing in the process. I can't think of a single spirit in the world that tastes better on the rocks by itself in a glass than good Kentucky sour mash bourbon aged in charred oak at least 9 years.

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine? GD are you worried about a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think real Obamacare? No, it is NOT OK if the outcome is positive. Didn't you read my post in #93? A good end NEVER justifies a bad means. Dictatorships and Oligarchies are not made overnight. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States or there is no law but what the current body politic decides. I've posted this before but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is 'Do you trust the people in government? Do you trust the people who will be there 10 years from now? 20 years from now?" The only rational answer is "No!" Trump appears to favor a non interventionist foreign policy which suits me fine. As for what he's going to do, who the hell knows? He hasn't said anything intelligible yet except promise to do things no President can do like raising tariffs on Mexico. Well Mexico is a signatory of NAFTA. We have a treaty with them meaning you CAN'T raise tariffs on them. Either he thinks he can and that's a problem. Or he knows he can't and he full of s--t and that is a problem. I understand your point, you see the Constitution as sacrosanct and you cannot change it But what if the Constitution became a stumbling block to progress...so people found a way to bypass it. Like the Gay Marriage Bill...you realize if the Supreme Court hadn't intervened you would still have states that would be refusing to allow two people who are in love to get married, of course these would be same sex couples But thats not fair GD...the USA is not about discrimination Ok, this is a far more complex subject than can be worked over in the few lines I have time to write. Although I am pleased with the outcome I don't like the means by which Obergefell was decided. It stems from this: marriage in the US is a legal contract. That gives the court jurisdiction over it. It never should have been than and this whole mess would have been headed off long ago. I'd love to dig more into this but I have to leave for work now.

The Constitution has provisions for how you change it, so that's not really applicable. I think - and GD can correct me if I'm wrong - that any change to the Constitution needs to come from the method the Constitution provides for change. Not because politicians or courts want to ignore the limits of their power. I could not have said it better!

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem! I hear you but surly if the objective is positive then it should be fine? GD are you worried about a Trump presidency ...in the sense he may do something really dumb like attack Iran What do you think he would do first if he became president ...I think real Obamacare? No, it is NOT OK if the outcome is positive. Didn't you read my post in #93? A good end NEVER justifies a bad means. Dictatorships and Oligarchies are not made overnight. The Constitution is the supreme law of the United States or there is no law but what the current body politic decides. I've posted this before but the question everyone needs to ask themselves is 'Do you trust the people in government? Do you trust the people who will be there 10 years from now? 20 years from now?" The only rational answer is "No!" Trump appears to favor a non interventionist foreign policy which suits me fine. As for what he's going to do, who the hell knows? He hasn't said anything intelligible yet except promise to do things no President can do like raising tariffs on Mexico. Well Mexico is a signatory of NAFTA. We have a treaty with them meaning you CAN'T raise tariffs on them. Either he thinks he can and that's a problem. Or he knows he can't and he full of s--t and that is a problem.

Exactly my point right here! The constitution of the Unites States specifically FORBIDS the Federal Government from interfering with the governance of the states except in the execution of the responsibilities assigned to the Federal Government by the Constitution. Social things like gay marriage is not among those. That he thinks he can is a problem! That he does so and gets away with it is a bigger problem!

If there is one thing I could drill into the heads of the 250 some odd million voting age citizens in the US it is this: The Constitution of the Unites States created a government of three branches with different responsibilities. And their power is LIMITED to just those responsibilities. When one branch of government exceeds it's authority and is allowed to do so by the other two, this is a big, big problem. It should terrify you. It should be punished at the ballot box. When a presidential candidate all but promises to respect no law or constraint on the power of the Executive Branch you SHOULD NOT VOTE FOR THEM! Three of the five likely candidates have all done that! Two of those three is the most likely 45th President. Have you people learned nothing from Obama? From Nixon? Jesus f-----g Christ at least Nixon wasn't allowed to get away with it. The goddamned Democrats and Republicans both in Congress rolled over on their backs and let Obama usurp their authority. And now the American voters are about to serve us up a slightly different flavor of the same toxic concoction? There is a very real danger when a President overreaches and people like the outcome. Now the limits of the office are eroded. It will be easier for the next President to do more, and more for the one after. Sooner or later that power may be in the hands of someone truly dangerous. Most people don't seem to understand that.

Which post are you referring to GD? I may have done it several times After eight years of Barack Obama I suddenly find I don't entirely disagree.

The beauty of vodka is that it assumes the flavor of whatever it is mixed with. The downside is you can't drink that trash straight. Unless you're Russian. But they don't make bourbon in Russia so they wouldn't know any different.

Nevermind

Can you get a deal from your company to buy car they are going to wholesale? I know they wholesale their fleet cars after they hit their depreciation. It would be used, and used hard at that but it might be a cheaper deal than buying new if you can get and employee discount.

Yes sure but once again I ask a simple question....does the USA Constitution not allow him to vote for who he wants? So it seems what would make people happy if Dean used his superdelegate rights to vote for Sanders ....that would be okay right? He can vote for anyone he wants in the general election. He gets one vote. He can support any Democrat he wants at the convention, including one not even running if he wants. The rules of the party allow that. The Democratic Party is not very democratic. They want the voters to give an opinion but they want the voters to know they don't get the final say. What is happening in the GOP is the very reason why the Dems made their rules this way.

https://youtu.be/G8xp8BQxftE

You don't want to live forever do you?

No GD....now thats going too far .....she is NOTHING like Trump She doesn't intentionally insult people and feel the need to keep telling people how great she is....its actually almost an insult to compare her to Trump I'm not talking about her personality.

Hillary Clinton is the perfect marriage of Trump & Rubio. She is just like Rubio on foreign policy (especially if you count immigration as "foreign" policy). She is just like Trump on domestic and political philosophy (except immigration, see above). Like Trump her presidency would be autocratic, respecting no limits on executive power. She will spend and spend, maybe not quite as prodigiously as Obama has but still bad. Welfare at home warfare abroad. Like Rubio her foreign policy will be interventionist and probably heavy handed. The only way she would differ from Trump is she is all for TPP. Well sometimes. Depends on when you ask her and what she thinks the ones asking the questions want to hear: http://www.state.gov/secretary/20092013clinton/rm/2012/11/200565.htm or http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/08/hillary-clinton/hillary-clinton-now-opposes-trans-pacific-partners/

I remember loving that game until they changed the game mechanics that punished any pitcher that wasn't a strikeout pitcher or who walked a decent amount. Pitchers like Tom Glavine or Bob Tewksbury got rocked every time I imported their seasons, even though in real life they had Cy Young caliber years. It's come a long way over the years. The thing about historical games is the ratings for a player are based on their past but beginning on the day the game begins the AI determines their future. It has nothing to do with a straight historical re-enactment. I was playing the 1932 St. Louis Cardinals and Dazzy Vance tore his UCL and needed Tommy John surgery. The problems with that are Dazzy Vance was in Brooklyn by then, never tore his UCL, and even if he did he'd be through because the first Tommy John surgery wasn't done until 1974. It's not really for straight re-enactment because things will happen that never happened. But I still like the management aspects of it.

The Twins ponied up $24M to buy this guy from the Korean League. KBO players don't do well in the MLB as a rule. But this dude might be the exception: http://m.mlb.com/news/article/166391166/byung-ho-park-delivers-grand-slam-in-twins-win