Guard Dog

I saw a bumper sticker today "Make a Democrat Cry: Be Happy"

I just lit the grill. I'm cooking venison and carrots for dinner.

Sounds like you might have an enemy, or a neighbor with a poor sense of direction and blamed you for what someone else is doing.

No one likes her, nurse Ratched has a warmer and more genuine personality. Interesting and accurate analysis of Cruz: http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/the-top-10-things-you-need-to-know-about-ted-cruz/ America under Sanders: http://www.hoover.org/research/enemy-state Down with the kulaks -er- billionaires! Well the idea there is that Trump is nominated has an outside shot of winning California in a general election. If that were possible it would be huge, stupendously huge. He could lose three of the five swing states and still win if he takes California. If it is possible a VP pick from there might help. There are few reliable conservatives who have statewide office or any personality clout in CA and I don't know if she even meets that description but she does have name recognition there and she completes the square on the whole "outsider" motif he's shooting for.

There is an old saying "Don't allow the perfect to become the enemy of the good". The Republicans are long known for their failure to follow this nugget of wisdom. In fact I think Monday was an example. It's nice to see the Dems are not immune: http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/02/clinton-sanders-2016-democrats-great-divide-213585?lo=ap_d2

No Gary Johnson? I'd be more inclined to vote on principle if there were not three SCOTUS judges over the age of 80. I do NOT want any democrat picking judges. Why not? The justices appointed by Democrats (Breyer, Kagan, Sotomayor, & Ginsburg) seldom take the part of individual freedom/liberties over the government. They tend to follow a philosophy of the power of the state being paramount over the individual. Not always. Ginsburg is the only one who is a completely reliable leftist. Kagan appears to be leaning that way but she hasn't been around long enough to say. Now when it comes to civil rights they do tend to favor the individual who is seen as the "aggrieved party" unless the government has an interest in the case then it's even money who falls where. For example in DC v Heller the liberals were firmly on the side of the District of Columbia despite the fact that the city's position was a textbook violation of both the wording and intent of the Constitution. One more liberal justice on that court and the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution disappears forever. The other thing I dislike about the liberal jurists is their notion of the role of the court. The purpose of the court is not to make law or find law where there is none. That is the job of the legislature. A judge should look at how the facts of the case apply to the law and then resolve the case based on that comparison. Scalia, Thomas, Alito and sometimes Roberts & Kennedy do this. It's called orginalisim or constructionism. The liberal judges apply a political or philosophical standard to the case then twist the meaning of the law to match their politics/philosophy and that resolves the case they way they want it to come out. That is called activism. It not a good thing. Under that philosophy the law is nothing more than silly putty and what is legal/illegal is entirely up to whomever has the power to make the decision at that time. Don't get me wrong. The lines between right & left are a lot fuzzier in the judiciary. And there is usually more agreement than dissention in cases where the meaning of the law is clear cut. But cases like that seldom have far reaching consequences. Cases like DC v Heller, & Kelo v New London, are prime examples if the liberal justices favoring the power of the state over the rights of the individual even when the law was clearly on the side of the individual. Democrats favor activist judges who think the law is something flexible than can be twisted into whatever shape those in power want. Republicans (usually) favor constructionist judges who see the law as something that must be applied evenly and but narrowly and only the legislature has the power to change it. That's why. I know it was a long answer but it's an important question.

I think in the end it hurt him that he tried to be a more mainstream candidate than his father. There was nothing to distinguish himself from all the other candidates. If he'd really pushed libertarian values, he would have resonated more. I'm curious when Jeb Bush will drop. I'm also curious where those votes will go. I assume Rubio. edit: Who do we think is a potential VP out of these candidates? Or do you think they will go with a nobody again like they did with McCain? Jeb will fold up after Super Tuesday. He figures he'll do better in the south but he won't. After that he'll pack it in. If Trump wins the nomination there is no telling who he'll pick. If it's Cruz he'll pick Jeb or Rubio because he will not win without Florida. Rubio will pick Kasich I think because he'll need help in Ohio and Cruz won't be needed because Rubio will win Texas without him. One idea I love for Trump is to pick Fiorina.

No Gary Johnson? I'd be more inclined to vote on principle if there were not three SCOTUS judges over the age of 80. I do NOT want any democrat picking judges.

Rand Paul has dropped out. And with him goes any hope that this country will have the kind of leader it needs. Now to choose between the lesser of two evils. In other words "not democrat". http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/rand-paul-dropping-out-of-white-house-race-218675

I can live with that. I'd rather have Rubio than Trump or Cruz.

Calax did you go today? If so how was it?

With 99% reporting Clinton has defeated Sanders by just 11 votes. This primary is going to be fun to watch. Hillary is going to go bat**** now that the mantle of inevitability is gone. Cruz won on the GOP side but the split between him, Trump & Rubio was almost three way. The big winner here is Rubio I'd think because he did better than expected. Plus as the other "establishment" types start to drop out (which will probably start tomorrow) he will gain the majority of their support. I read Carson may drop out tomorrow but I'd guess Cruz stands to gain most of his supporters.

I've spent time in Japan, Mexico, South Korea, The Philippines, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Canada (Toronto only), and the Bahamas. I would not take any of them over living in the USA. Politics & governments not being a consideration there was something I didn't like about each. I'm sure there is something to not like about every square inch of dirt on the Earth though. It's curious that most of us are choosing countries we have not lived in or travelled extensively to. My two choices I've never set foot in.

They have a pretty good thing going here: http://web.theabl.com.au/index.jsp

I lived in Japan for a time when I was in the military. In Okinawa to be exact. Beautiful place and really great people but there is just so many of them. Traffic is a nightmare. I didn't spend much time in mainland Japan but from what I did see (Tokyo mainly) was huge and ultra modern.

This discussion came up on another board I participate in. I think it will be livelier here since most of you all have gotten around more. If you were exiled from whatever country you currently call home and had to move elsewhere, which nation and why? My choice would be one I've never even visited (yet); Iceland. I always knew where it was but not much else about it. Believe it or not until Woldan went on vacation there last year and posted pictures of it I'd never given the place a thought. But since then I've read a little about it and it seems absolutely beautiful. I've got to take a trip there someday. I'd say Canada for my second choice but that seems kind of lazy to me. It does have some political differences from the US but except for Quebec it's practically the same place. So my second choice would have to be Australia. Great SCUBA diving and fishing and they have a pro baseball league there. Got to give it points for that. Where would you pick and why?

I'm driving to Austin Peay today to attend a meeting. I'm hoping it will be short. It won't be.

Is this the beginning of the zombie apocalypse? No? Ok, I'll go back to ignoring it then.

The Primaries begin today. No matter who wins, we lose!

I have to agree with you on this one. Every news source it seems has an axe to grind even if it is only evident in the stories they choose to cover or not to cover.

Wow Oerwinde you do have your hands full. Best of luck. If it were a dog I'd prescribe lots of exercise. It works wonders on them. But for a kid I wouldn't know which way to go.

We were talking about this very thing at work (since water management is what I do now) and we all agree there were probably engineers from the Michigan Dept of Natural Resources explaining to city & state bureaucrats the hazards of high alkalinity water sources to the processing equipment and they also certainly got into subjects like aeration softeners and chemical balancing. And I'm pretty sure the bureaucrats zoned out once the subject of cost came up. I've seen that look before.

Now this is funny! http://www.theonion.com/article/dazed-marco-rubio-wakes-koch-compound-find-cold-me-52260