Real Common Sense

Comments

  1. If anyone thinks that Red Flag laws will not get seriously abused, I still have that bridge to Hawaii to sell you!

  2. So a US Fencer kneels during the National Anthem. I think that this has played it’s course and has become Liberal self promotion. The so called protestor is really saying “Look at me, I’m woke”. Who cares anymore about these little twits? They can kneel till their knee bleeds for all I care.

    • Who cares anymore about these little twits?

      It seems that you do.

      I’m not hearing anything about this anywhere else..

      • Ummm, actually, it’s been reported on a lot. Here’s one from CNN

        https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/11/us/usa-fencer-kneels-anthem/index.html

        The .little jerk is representing team USA while telling everyone how ashamed he is of his Country.

        • It’s not on the CNN home page.

          It’s not on the CNN Sport home page.

          It’s not on the CNN Sports / Olympics home page.

          I’m not denying they wrote an article.. they did.. you linked to it… but it certainly isn’t getting heavy coverage by CNN.

          HuffPo doesn’t have it. Drudge.com dosn’t have it. Not even Bob Cesca has it. It’s not on the front page for Daily Beast or DailyKos…

          You know who has it on the home page? Fox News.

          But no one “on the left” seems to give a shit. It’s only the right that’s freaking out.

          • You can rate the coverage however you want to. But just a quick search shows CNN, Washington Post, USA Today, the Hill, and others covering the story. What I want to know is what’s your point? The left thought kneeling was a big deal , covered it a lot. So why now is it not a big deal to anyone but Fox, per you anyway. 😊

            Could it be, the issue was a losing one for the Democratic Party.

            • Could be. I think the issue could have been a winner for the left, but it wasn’t. ::shrug::

              I didn’t care about the football kneeling guy, I don’t care about this fencer.

              I don’t see some massive wave of anti-standing sentiment from the left. I don’t see any left-leaning front page cheering of this fencer. It seems that the left has decided it just doesn’t care about this…

              That’s not to say that the major outlets didn’t cover it. Just that they didn’t push the stories. Because they don’t care. And they don’t care because their readers don’t care.

              So, Gman says “The so called protestor is really saying “Look at me, I’m woke”. W’ho cares anymore about these little twits?”

              And my answer is.. you [gman] do.

              He says “who cares?” and the answer appears to be that the only people who care are on the right.

              Could it be because the issue is a losing winning one for the Democratic Republican Party?

              • And my answer to Gman—- I Do!

                No matter how you want to frame this, both the left and right cared about this issue, so much they discussed it for months and months. The only thing that has changed is the left
                Has decided they no longer care to DISCUSS it. How convenient!

              • Yes, they decided it was stupid and moved on.

                A small faction within the left has not let it go.

                And now, a small subset of the left is doing something stupid and not endorsed by the bulk of “the left,” but “the right” continues to pick it up and act like it’s a big deal rather than the actions of a few individuals.

                It would be one thing if the left were picking up the story and talking about how great it was and what a wonderful point he was making. But they aren’t. They’re just ignoring him. Because they don’t care. Because they see his protest and just don’t care.

                So when he asks “who cares?” the answer is not “let left.”

              • I’m sorry, they decided what was stupid? They certainly didn’t think kneeling was stupid, they cheered it on. Now suddenly it’s just a small subset of democrats doing something stupid. I guess the right just hallucinate d the lefts support for those kneeling.

              • I’m sorry, they decided what was stupid? They certainly didn’t think kneeling was stupid, they cheered it on.

                They did.

                Then they lost the PR fight.

                Then they moved on.

                A few people didn’t.

                And the left just doesn’t care about them.

                It’s not like once you care about something you’re legally obligated to think it’s of vital importance forever.

                The left moved on.

                Now they don’t care.

                And you can tell they don’t care because they’re not arguing the case in favor of the guy. They’re just ignoring it.

                Because they don’t care.

                Who does care?

                Well, evidently Fox cares because they put it on their home page.

                Gman cares because he re-posted it here.

                Now suddenly it’s just a small subset of democrats doing something stupid. I guess the right just hallucinate d the lefts support for those kneeling.

                Of course you didn’t hallucinate it.

                It was there. There was support.

                But the left lost the PR fight.

                They gave up.

                They moved on.

                But not all of them. Some people will be doing this for years to come.

                And the right is going to try to hang it around our necks for the next 100 years.

                Personally, I don’t care, and never cared, and never will care except insofar as I think the right’s reaction has been bonkers.

                But Gman asked “who cares” – in the present tense. And the answer to that is “the right” because they can use it to score political points.

              • This whole kneeling thing started under Obama and it was about police killing blacks. It had ZERO to do with Trump at the time. Now, some have morphed it into the bullshit lie that Trump is a racist, which he has proven time and again he is no such thing. This is ALL they Democrats have to win the 2020 election.

                Now the Liberal media is trying to associate Trump with Epstein. Frankly, this is great because intelligent people see the Liberal media for who they are, Democrat propagandist’s. It’s a losing strategy, as is the kneeling stuff.

                At least Biden’s gaffes are providing some entertainment 😀

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Right there on the CNN web page, along with other sports stories. Right where it was this weekend.

            https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/11/us/usa-fencer-kneels-anthem/index.html

            Including a reporters commentary and an interview.

            Funny how your standard changed from nobody is covering it to nobody is “pushing” it.

            Why are they covering it? Because he did not trash the USA………..HE IS TRASHING TRUMP and enforcing the myth that Trump is causing all the racism and “mistreatment” of immigrants.

            • My bad.. I was searching for the word “fencer” but the link was for “US gold medalist kneels during national anthem at Pan Am Games”…

              That said, the article is pretty dry..

              Why are they covering it? Because it happened.

              It’s not like it was when the football guy was doing it where HuffPo was emblazonment their support above the fold and arguing his case.

              It’s a thing that happened. CNN reported it.

              I “moved the goalpost” to “pushing it” because the question gman asked was “who cares” and the answer, again, isn’t the left. The left doesn’t care. CNN reported that it happened, tucked it away in the middle of the sports section (where it belongs), and that’s that.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Bull Dookey. CNN did not just cover it. And yes, HUFFPO also had a piece as did Drudge, and others. They did not just report on the kneeling. They dove into the REASONS>

                CNN went to the trouble to give the guy a PLATFORM to give his speech LIVE via interview.

                Just can’t admit this can you!

                Of course the left doesn’t care about the kneeling. They celebrate it, they support it, they love it because it is aimed at Mr. Trump. Just watch how they howl when it continues with a Dem POTUS. You love your little hypotheticals so play this one out in your mind. Imagine this guy knelt over the left’s demonizing our President and support of Illegal Aliens. Do you suppose CNN would have given him a live interview? Do you think the headlines on the left wing sites would be about the supposed issues, or would it be about “white supremacist kneels during anthem”?

                Of course the right cares, it is blatant ignorance, exaggeration, condescending and disrespectful of the nation at large. So yeah, put me in the category of “I CARE”.

                But caring about the atmosphere that is condoning this kind of stupid doesn’t mean I am in knots over some nobody fencer or even a half wit QB with a lousy throwing motion.

                Some times your inner need to play tit for tat distorts the reality around you.

              • Just can’t admit this can you!

                It certainly wasn’t my experience. I didn’t see or hear a peep about this from CNN, Drudge, HuffPo or anywhere else until Gman brought it up here.

                If I am mistaken – and I freely admit that I may be – then I humbly retract my assertion(s).

                MY impression is that the left, generally, does not care about such protests any longer as they did not have the desired effect (calling attention to issues which needed attention) and instead had an undesired effect (allowing the right to beat the shit out of us in a PR fight). As such, the left has largely moved on even while some still do this. ::shrug::

                THAT SAID, even if I am mistaken (again, wholly possible), I stand by my assertion that the ones who care the most are the right.

                Imagine this guy knelt over the left’s demonizing our President and support of Illegal Aliens

                Honestly? My interpretation would probably be that the guy is a moron, a racist, a hyper-partisan or any combination thereof.

                But, and I mean this from the deepest depths of my coal-black soul: I would not give two shits.

                Do you suppose CNN would have given him a live interview?

                CNN? Yes.

                HuffPo et al? Not on your life.

                Some times your inner need to play tit for tat distorts the reality around you.

                Always possible. But maybe you could admit that you and others AREN’T playing enough tit-for-tat around here?

              • Kamala Harris and Lizzy Warren both tweeted that the Ferguson kid was MURDERED. Now who is spreading devisive bullshit that had long ago been debunked? The Left screams this about Trump, yet, the hypocrisy and lies keep coming.

              • I don’t know how to be any clear about this: I don’t approve of spreading debunked bullshit, conspiratorial bullshit, or any other kid of bullshit, whether it’s done by or in service to, “my side” or otherwise.

  3. I have seen quite a few fingers pointed at the Clintons re Epstein.

    My father-in-law asserted the other day, with absolute certainty, that they were behind it.

    Trump retweeted the conspiracy theory.

    Now, don’t get me wrong, I do not for one second believe that this was a legitimate suicide. If for no other reason than he was removed from suicide watch so soon after an earlier attempt (which I also don’t credit as a real attempt).

    THAT SAID, I have zero reason to blame the Clintons. YES, Bill was a known associate and, yes, he does have a.. zipper problem. So he very well may be implicated in this. But so is Trump. Trump also was a known associate, with a zipper problem… AND he has an actual rape charge by a then-12-year-old (13 y/o?) AND he allegedly threatened her with physical harm if she talked.

    My point here is not to defend Clinton or impugn Trump, but rather to point out that we have no actual evidence favoring Clinton over Trump. Nor, for that matter, do we have evidence favoring either over the many, many we don’t know about.

    So what gives?

    • He had lots of big names associated with him (Epstein). I’ll just guess that the autopsy will show suicide. I’m sure the opportunity was provided by removing cell mate and not watching him. Looks like a “dead men don’t talk” movie.

      • No doubt as to any of that.

        He was removed from suicide watch which, according to several things I’ve read (but am still not 100% convinced are fully accurate) would be an unheard of thing to do in this situation.

        Were I the warden, I would have at least two dedicated guards on this guy all day every day.

        I have no very little doubt that he was murdered and that the autopsy will say suicide.

        That’s not my point. The point I’m making is that you and I (and my father in law) have no reason to point the finger at Clinton rather than Trump rather than some other as-yet-unknown billionaire pedophile. There were a LOT of powerful people who wanted him dead, yet it seems that “the right” as decided to blame Clinton, and I think that’s unfair.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Surprised you had no comment on this….

      Jeffery Epstein.

      I am amazed that my local paper devoted less space to that death today than they did to decline in reform Jewish congregations in my area!

      Now, my eldest, the Lt. Col, threw this one out…….. MOSSAD!

      He seems to remember that one of the reasons Epstein got off so lightly last time according to the prosecutor was that he was an “intelligence asset” for somebody. Since nobody has apparently been able to nail down the source for his apparently endless finances would it NOT make sense to speculate that they were from an intel agency? When I think about it, how brilliant would it have been to recruit Epstein, fund him and have him go about getting incredibly compromising info on absolutely everybody who might someday have some influence in government.

      Before you go off and dismiss this. Remember, it was very common and very successful for the KGB to recruit Brit agents by getting the goods on their homosexuality and then blackmailing them?

      I do NOT believe it was the Russians though. Not this time.

      • I have no evidence to support or discredit this information.

        I’m always leery of pointing the finger at THE JEWS DID IT… but the Mossad are pretty bad ass and very well could have if it had suited their interests.

        Generally, I see no reason to believe or disbelieve this, so I really have nothing to add.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Please acknowledge that Trump disassociated himself from Eppie well over a decade ago and banned him from Mar-lago. In light of the Mossad idea, one would have to wonder if he tried to “compromise” Trump in some way. Nice of you to use “alleged” though.

      • Please acknowledge that Trump disassociated himself from Eppie well over a decade ago

        So acknowledged.

        and banned him from Mar-lago

        News to me, but completely believable. Acknowledged.

        In light of the Mossad idea, one would have to wonder if he tried to “compromise” Trump in some way

        Sure.. possible… but completely unfounded speculation.

        You have no evidence they were involved, nor any evidence of what their motivations might have been if they were.

        Nice of you to use “alleged” though.

        Well, it hasn’t been proven to my satisfaction, so…

        ——————

        Please acknowledge that, though Trump severed ties years ago, there is no evidence to support (yes, prove the negative) the idea that he didn’t do the things of which he is accused before severing ties.

        Put another way, it is just as credible that he, Trump, did bad things with Epstein as it is that Bill Clinton did.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Interesting and yet more evidence that Google is playing a game. Up first is the July story I referenced which was also reported elsewhere about Trump banning Epstein over something related to sex. Then we have the NEW allegations which have now become the first page on google pushing strongly that it was really over real estate. Setting Trump up again I guess.

          https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-barred-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a-lago-over-sex-assault-court-docs/

          https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2019/08/donald-trump-jeffrey-epstein-falling-out

          • Google’s goal isn’t to “give you the best result” or “give you the truth.” What they want to do is give you the result it thinks “you want.”

            If I search for something, given my obviously liberal-leanings, Google will give me different results than it will for you. That’s not them “playing games.” That’s their business model.

            They sell advertising, which means people need to visit their page, which means they need to give people incentive to visit their page, which means they need to give the people the results they want. Any agenda other than “give people the results they want” is a net-loss for them.

    • It is well known that throughout the years, many Clinton associates have been found dead of unusual circumstances, to the point some have an ongoing count going. That’s probably why there is some finger pointing towards the Clintons.

      • It is well known that there are many bullshit conspiracy theories amounting to a Clinton “body count,” but there’s ZERO actual factual evidence.

        That’s not to say for a second that I would be surprised to find they’d actually had people killed, but you’re peddling conspiracy theories and acting like that’s support for your latest conspiracy theory.

        • At this point, it is nothing but a conspiracy theory, so we agree on that. Its not as thought the Left hasnt been pushing their own whoppers the last 3 years.

          • Its not as thought the Left hasnt been pushing their own whoppers the last 3 years.

            No, it’s not.

            But, whether it comes from the left or the right, bullshit is bullshit.

  4. “I was appalled to learn that Jeffrey Epstein was found dead early this morning from an apparent suicide while in federal custody,” Barr said in a statement. “Mr. Epstein’s death raises serious questions that must be answered. In addition to the FBI’s investigation, I have consulted with the Inspector General who is opening an investigation into the circumstances of Mr. Epstein’s death.”

    That’s the right sentiment.. let’s see how he follows it up.

  5. I’m sorry, say what you will of this article or the left-leaning rag the hosts it, but his is a great headline: “Racist Donald Trump hates being called racist, but being less racist is apparently not on the table”

  6. Canine Weapon says:

    Bear falls on California patrol car, causing crash and fire

    They probably don’t train them for that in the police academy…

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Funny, I was thinking about you this weekend. Wondering if you were still blogging.

      Hope all is well in the land of “L”.

    • Kent!!

      Nice to see you alive and back in these waters.

      Now a question for you: SOME people suggest that the solution to “gun violence” is more more people to have guns. I believe that having untrained, undisciplined people wandering around armed all the time is a recipe for disaster. (note: I am not asking anything about government here, just “in practice”). Do you believe that “more armed people = less death”?

      Every statistic I’ve seen seems to agree that having a gun makes you less safe. That’s not to say that’s justification for use of government fiat, but a simple recognition that having a device in your home designed for the sole purpose of accelerating metal slugs to legal velocities presents an increase danger to the owner of that device. That said, it is -MY- opinion that that’s YOUR right to take YOUR risks with YOUR life. A pool is similarly dangerous to the pool owner (and family), but I would never suggest you have to fill in your pool.

      SO, don’t misread my question. I want to know if you dispute the idea that, all things being equal, if everyone were armed, that the benefits would be outweighed by accidents and crimes of passion?

      Sure, there might be fewer massacres, but those are statistical blips anyway. I think the consequence would be dramatically more wives shooting cheating husbands, dropped weapons going off and killing by standers, road rage shootings, etc. Not so many as would really, really, matter.. just more than would be offset via reduced mass-shootings.

      • Everyone i know that carries a gun practice with it and know the laws. Other that some blue states, we already have a large number of CC, so your fears are wildly unfounded. Your understanding of how guns actually work, as far as numerous safety features that keep guns from firing when dropped, also shows that you have little knowledge of guns in general, and thats ok, if i had to puzh a common sense gun law, it would be no guns for the Left 😀 😀

        • Gman,

          I am fairly well versed in firearms, given that I’m a raging liberal. I actually do like to shoot, not that I have for years, and won a few marksmanship badges in camp when I was much younger. 🙂

          I understand what a safety is and what the mechanism does and how it works. I understand, however, that no everyone uses it correctly, which is why, every so often, some idiot gets shot by a toddler.

          I also understand that you are a backwoods yokel surrounded by other backwoods yokels, and that “gun culture” is the closest thing you have to actual culture and, as such, of course, y’all “practice with it” consistently.

          STILL, I know at least one person who shot himself in the knee while cleaning his piece because he forgot to check the chamber. And that could, by his own admission, very easily have been far worse.

          AND, I saw an article not to long ago about a teacher who left his gun in the bathroom where it was found by kids who subsequently played with it.

          AND, I have seen enough road rage incidents to know that “shooting at each other” wouldn’t be wholly uncommon if more people had guns.

          AND, I understand the difference between self-selected people who are interested in guns and just random people who might hold them because, “hey, why not.”

          The question stands… if you handed out a firearm to every American adult, would the death rate go up or down? It seems obvious to me that a society wherein everyone is more dangerous is a society in which more people die.

          • Kent put things quite well as to how i feel. I’d go as far as saying there would be less violent road rage incidents and less gang activity. There may be more benefits as well.

      • SOME people suggest that the solution to “gun violence” is more more people to have guns.

        I largely agree.

        You know that old Heinlein saying “An armed society is a polite society“? Well, I’ve participated in universally armed societies. They are polite and safe. Accidents were rare… rare enough I remember the two minor accidents that happened. And no one tried very seriously to violate anyone else– it wasn’t worth it. The few times someone looked like they were going to become a problem, they were driven away and warned to not return (and they didn’t). That kind of nonsense wasn’t tolerated, and no one’s rights were violated in the process.

        I believe that having untrained, undisciplined people wandering around armed all the time is a recipe for disaster.

        “Disaster” is a bit melodramatic. Carrying a gun isn’t comfortable or convenient. If you are untrained and undisciplined you aren’t going to bother with it for long. And, again, if you cause problems the other armed people aren’t going to stand for it. Plus, exercising that responsibility seems to cause people to become more responsible. I’ve seen this happen several times.

        And yes, more armed people = less death. It would probably even result in less death for the bad people, since they’ll know their potential targets are likely to be armed and not worth it.

        Every statistic I’ve seen seems to agree that having a gun makes you less safe.

        You must be filtering the statistics you expose yourself to.

        Less safe? Nope. I suppose if you have a gun it’s more likely that you’ll be hurt by a gun. Just like you aren’t going to get a paper cut if you have no paper. But that doesn’t mean you won’t get hurt some other way– you aren’t “safer” banning paper from your life. People can always manage to find ways to hurt themselves and others. So?

        if everyone were armed…

        I have never suggested everyone be armed. I just recognize there is no right to demand anyone be unarmed/disarmed.

        I’ve been around some people I didn’t trust to be armed– so I got away from them, stayed away from them, and I warned others of my concerns. One of these dangerous people was in the process of joining the military. I always wonder what happened to him. But this is why I would never force anyone to have a gun if they didn’t want to, and there are people I have discouraged from getting a gun until they could get their emotions under control and learn to safely handle a gun.

        Having a gun is one of the best ways to learn responsibility– but I know some people will never learn to be responsible and would be a danger with or without a gun.

        The people I know who are against gun ownership seem very angry and easily “triggered” (HaHa). Much more prone to violence than the gun owners I know– even the blustery blow-hard gun owners who like to “talk big” (I consider them morons). I’m much less likely to get angry over trivial things since I fully embraced my right to own and to carry weapons. Knowing that I could end a life on a “whim” makes me more careful to not even get into those situations, and to try harder to calm down the fools who insist on bringing those situations to me.

        Modern guns are hard to have accidents with. You can still be an idiot and pull the trigger at the wrong time, but dropped guns rarely fire from being dropped. Don’t get or carry a gun that isn’t safe to drop.

        I don’t think it’s worse to commit a crime of passion with a gun than with something else. Nor do I believe it’s worse to attack someone because of road rage with a gun than with some other weapon. And in both cases I want to see the intended victim armed and able to defend himself from the attacker– and any “law” which would disarm the attacker could be used to disarm the victim. If the attacker ignores “laws” about beating people up on the road, why do you imagine they’d obey a “law” saying they can’t own or carry a gun? Bad guys are less likely to obey any “law” than other people. If the attacker dies, that is technically “more death”, but it’s a “good death”. I know that’s not politically correct, but it’s true.

        I would rather my worst enemy be armed than be subject to some illegitimate rule saying he/she can’t be. Part of that is because I know the “common sense rules” [sic] always get used against people who aren’t supposed to be the target of the rule. Let an armed society deal with the problem individuals when they create trouble.

        So, in short, no, I don’t believe more guns would result in more innocent deaths– and I don’t care about violators getting killed. Because the idiots and the bad people always find a way to hurt themselves and others, with or without guns. The best thing to do is to stop preventing their victims from having effective ways to fight back. Anti-gun “laws” kill.

        • The few times someone looked like they were going to become a problem, they were driven away and warned to not return (and they didn’t). That kind of nonsense wasn’t tolerated, and no one’s rights were violated in the process.

          This looks a bit self-contradictory…..

          Plus, exercising that responsibility seems to cause people to become more responsible.

          Tell taht to the gangs and other assorted hoodlums.

          suppose if you have a gun it’s more likely that you’ll be hurt by a gun. Just like you aren’t going to get a paper cut if you have no paper.

          That’s the idea.

          Or, as indicated, you won’t drown in a pool if you don’t have a pool.

          But even in break-in situations, if you are armed, you’re more likely to get shot than if you’re unarmed. Why? Because people tend to… errr… play cowboy.

          I have never suggested everyone be armed. I just recognize there is no right to demand anyone be unarmed/disarmed.

          I understand… not tryin’ to put words in your mouth. Just asking MY hypothetical.

          I think if my wife carried a gun, I’d probably be dead by now.

          and there are people I have discouraged from getting a gun until they could get their emotions under control and learn to safely handle a gun.

          A-MEN!

          But just suppose an entire country holding thousands, tens of thousands of such people… and “no” gun laws…. and we’re told, the way to be safe is to have more armed people… so they all get armed… now you’ve all all those unstable, un-relaible, un-trained, un-disciplined people wandering around armed, thinking they’re just making themselves safer, but in reality, they’re just ticking timebombs…

          What I’m getting at is that there are so few mass-murders.. but there are so many of THESE people.. and if you armed the later, you might prevent the former.. but at what cost?

          Again, not suggesting any laws here.. just asking the question..

          but I know some people will never learn to be responsible and would be a danger with or without a gun.

          Sure.. but you have to admit, they’re much more dangerous with, right?

          Modern guns are hard to have accidents with.

          Sure. Maybe “dropped” was a bad example to offer.

          But, even so, give so many millions more people guns, what percentage of them have accidents, and does that exceed the number of lives saved via prevention of mass-shootings? I’d argue it almost certainly does.

          If the attacker dies, that is technically “more death”, but it’s a “good death”. I know that’s not politically correct, but it’s true.

          No arguments here.. Darwin approves.

          “Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.”

          The best thing to do is to stop preventing their victims from having effective ways to fight back. Anti-gun “laws” kill.

          Is anything stopping them now?

          Seems to me it’s pretty easy to get a legal gun almost anywhere unless you’re a felon or some such (I’m not up on all the actual laws).. but, anyway, that’s not my question, and I think you’ve answered with your opinion… though I disagree, I appreciate your perspective.

          • Tell taht to the gangs and other assorted hoodlums.”

            You can’t really judge gun ownership by those people like you can’t just sex by rapists.

            But just suppose an entire country holding thousands, tens of thousands of such people… and “no” gun laws…. and we’re told, the way to be safe is to have more armed people… so they all get armed… now you’ve all all those unstable, un-relaible, un-trained, un-disciplined people wandering around armed, thinking they’re just making themselves safer, but in reality, they’re just ticking timebombs…

            Even in that country, the responsible people would vastly outnumber the irresponsible. If not, they’ll all die one way or another before they get guns.

            Sure.. but you have to admit, they’re much more dangerous with, right?

            No more so than with cars, lighters, and “laws”. If I don’t trust someone with a gun, I don’t trust them period.

            Is anything stopping them now?

            Yes. The “laws” already on the books. Every time you make it incrementally less convenient or more expensive you’re going to prevent more people from carrying a gun. And you’re going to have a bigger impact on the good people than on the bad. Good people often have an unreasonable respect for even bad “laws”. Bad guys aren’t burdened with that. They can always get a gun or something to be more heavily armed than their intended victims.

            But, this is why I don’t comment much. I hate not responding to questions, but I don’t have a lot of time to spare. I’ll still try to answer a few more if they come up.

            • You can’t really judge gun ownership by those people like you can’t just sex by rapists.

              Well put!!

              Every time you make it incrementally less convenient or more expensive you’re going to prevent more people from carrying a gun.

              Well put!!

              Given this, let’s take a tangent, shall we?

              Abortion.

              What do you make of the laws and restrictions Republicans put in place to make abortion more inconvenient/harder/more expensive?

              this is why I don’t comment much. I hate not responding to questions, but I don’t have a lot of time to spare. I’ll still try to answer a few more if they come up.

              Well I, for one, tremendously value your presence.

              YOU – you and BF – are what I came to SUFA for. You are the true libertarian outsiders and haven’t drunk the kool-aid. I know I’m a liberal lefty big-government elitist, and I know you and I won’t ever agree on much, but it’s much much much much more enjoyable debating with you than arguing with a partisan. Hopefully you can find more time to spend with us.

              • What do you make of the laws and restrictions Republicans put in place to make abortion more inconvenient/harder/more expensive?

                I don’t believe politicians are qualified to be making any medical (or ethical) decisions for anyone but themselves.

                Personally, I don’t like abortion, but I would never pass a “law” to restrict it. (I don’t support “laws” against anything. I see only two kinds of “law”– the unnecessary and the harmful.) I know abortion is sometimes necessary and I don’t want anyone or anything telling a woman and her doctor that it’s not an option. Or even making it more difficult or expensive than it has to be.

                I always go back to social pressure/shunning. If you don’t like abortion bad enough that you don’t want to associate with those who’ve had one or doctors who perform them, then don’t. Refuse to deal with those people and tell others why. I don’t feel that strongly about it because I don’t believe a zygote is a human with rights, but I know a full-term baby is… and I don’t know where– scientifically speaking– to draw the line. But I do know a pregnant woman has all her human rights intact and I’ll respect those. Because there is doubt in my mind, I’ll side with the woman. If the baby is full-term and she wants to abort, do it, keep the baby alive if possible, and let someone adopt it.

              • You’re a good dude, Kent.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Jeez have been pointing out for years that we were told when Florida went “shall issue” people expected OK corral style justice. 44 states followed suit and the ONLY thing we have to show for it is a statistically significant drop in crime.

        IF YOU ARE referencing the “16 times more likely to shoot a family member or be used against the gun owner” statistic please be advise NO ONE can find an original source for that stat. Made up from whole cloth (whatever that means) as they used to say.

  7. Just A Citizen says:
  8. I didn’t think the kneeling stuff would cause quite a chat, but here’s another story: https://offthewire.com/anthem-kneeler-furious-with-his-teams-owner-for-planning-a-huge-fundraiser-for-trump/

    Why do these Leftist’s think everyone, including their employers are somehow required to think like them? They should wake up because their claim of moral superiority is BS, HS, PS and MS. That’s a lot of poop too! 🙂

  9. https://www.redstate.com/alexparker/2019/08/12/stop-youre-put-worries-aside-let-child-sing-message-need-hear/

    If you’re reading this and listening to the video at the end, make sure to stroll down a little further. There’s another video of her singing with her mother when she was really young.

  10. Just A Citizen says:

    Agitprop (/ˈædʒɪtprɒp/; from Russian: агитпроп, tr. Agitpróp, portmanteau of “agitation” and “propaganda”)[1] is political propaganda, especially the communist propaganda used in Soviet Russia, that is spread to the general public through popular media such as literature, plays, pamphlets, films, and other art forms with an explicitly political message.[2]

    The term originated in Soviet Russia as a shortened name for the Department for Agitation and Propaganda (отдел агитации и пропаганды, otdel agitatsii i propagandy), which was part of the central and regional committees of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The department was later renamed Ideological Department. Typically Russian agitprop explained the ideology and policies of the Communist Party and attempted to persuade the general public to support and join the party and share its ideals.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    The Democratic leadership isn’t all about race, right Mathius? Nope, nobody in the mainstream wants “white people” to become a minority.

    “Keir Murray, a longtime Democratic strategist in Texas, credits Trump for putting the state in play. Democrats expected the state would eventually start to move in their direction as more minorities moved there, but they thought that was still five years away, give or take.”

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    Mayor of San Jose, CA. : “Under current Supreme Court rulings, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution protects the right to keep and bear arms. However, the Constitution does not require taxpayers to subsidize that individual choice. The cost of city police and emergency services required to address gun violence should be paid by gun owners, not all taxpayers.”

    Mr. Mayor! So what TAX are you going to place on the gang bangers in your community and how do you plan on collecting the tax?

    Could you quantify accurately the “cost” to the public caused by law abiding citizens owning guns?

    Now on the Dreaded Pirate side, please go ahead and while you are at it, we taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for the emergency services to address …………………… insert any stupid act by other people here.

    • This is wonderful.

      It means they’ve opened the door to tax away the rights they can’t kill by other means.

      I don’t like religion. I consider it a blight on society responsible for much of our backwardness. Before this, there was nothing I could do, but now I can tax churches into oblivion!

      Oh, glory be!

    • I have a great idea. Using current salaries for political positions as caps, politicians can only get the percentage of votes they got to win the election as their salary. Win 52 % of vote, get 52% of salary cap. All salary increases MUST be voted on by the people under the same rules. 😀

      • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

        I have a better idea….

        It involves 100% less of giving them stolen money and 100% more guillotines.

    • The Dread Pirate Mathius says:

      Now on the Dreaded Pirate side, please go ahead and while you are at it, we taxpayers shouldn’t have to pay for the emergency services to address …………………… insert any stupid act by other people here.

      Let ’em come get it.

      Y’AARRRGGGH!

  13. Just A Citizen says:

    I have a question regarding people toting guns around.

    Never in my life have I seen so many carrying guns in public. WHY?????????

    Violent crime is at almost an all time low. So WHY????????????

    Open carry seems most prevalent in small towns, where most folks know each other already, and crime is almost non-existent. So WHY?????????

    • To keep things peaceful. Bad people will act badly if not dissuaded. An armed society is a peaceful society, as you can attest too!

    • Why not?
      Maybe crime is at an all-time low precisely because of people carrying.
      Back when I lived in Colorado I open carried all the time, everywhere.
      Now that I live in anti-gun Texas I don’t. Of course, I’ve also been won over to the sense of concealed carry so I might have changed my open carry habits anyway by now.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        kent

        WHY? This is not a question of can or cannot. But why have people changed when the need to carry is lower?

        Do they feel more unsafe? Do the feel their rights are being taken so they carry to make a statement? Or are people just less courageous and now need support?

        Something changed and it was in the recent past. Seems to me it was Obama’s election. Or was it that in combination with the rise of Right Wing media to inflame the fear and passion?

        • Perhaps: crime is lower… more people carry… end of story. No connection.
          But I suspect crime is lower because more people carry.
          Is it causation or just correlation? I don’t know. If people decide to stop carrying because crime is low– or because it’s “illegal” [sic], we may find out.

          I started carrying long before Obama– 1992, actually. Just because I wanted to. I didn’t feel unsafe in general (but over the years there have been times I was glad I was carrying). It’s just part of being aware and responsible.

    • Never in my life have I seen so many carrying guns in public. WHY?????????

      Violent crime is at almost an all time low. So WHY????????????

      Perception.

      Crime might be at an all-time low (and has been tending down for centuries), but it sure doesn’t feel that way.

      A mass-shooting is a… flashy.. event and the press can’t trip over themselves fast enough to blow it up to a major story. It sells papers, drives clicks, gets you to tune in. It makes them money, so they do it. Tell a story over and over and over and over again enough and it begins to feel like the uncommon event is actually common.

      If everyone in the media reported a shark attack every few days, then after a few months, you would start to feel like there’s an epidemic of shark attacks. And it won’t matter that you intellectually know that’s not the case, it will feel that way. Especially to the broader public who may be less intelligent and/or less informed than you.

      So they’re scared of these mass shooters. They’re scared some crazy person will shoot them at any moment for any reason.

      And fear makes people want exert more control over their lives and their safety. And they feel they can best do this by putting themselves in a position to defend themselves by carrying a weapon.

      ::shrug::

      • Your being a bit short sighted, but your from the city, so you are excused 🙂
        There are many reasons to carry a gun other than protection sgainst criminals. Where i live, we have lots of wildlife and sometimes they get sick. Rabid coyotes, fox, racoons etc are not uncommon. Wild animals may also attack pets.
        Dogs can be equally vicious.
        Texas has poisonous snakes and similar issues with wildlife and dogs.
        There are many reasons to have a gun handy for many folks, just as much as any other tool. People. Are. Stupid. And some are just evil. Thats a good enough reason, but rarely , if ever, is what the gun is used for.

        • You know, Gman, I frequently feel like you’re full of crap. Buuuutttt…….

          But I carry a Swiss Army knife. Nothing major, a 4″ locking blade with some tools. It’d be less than useless in a fight, but man is it HANDY.

          That said, every time a city slicker sees it, they look at me like I’m Crocodile Dundee.

          As if I’ve brought some wildly dangerous unnecessary thing with me into a situation that doesn’t call for it. Like I’m using a katana to open an envelope.

          So I get where you’re coming from. My knife is HANDY. I carry it everywhere, at all times. I hardly ever go a day without using it for something. Whether it’s opening one of the many, many, many boxes my wife orders from Amazon, cutting a loose thread, stabbing a hobo, or tightening a loose screw on my kid’s bed.

          I live in a city where a gun just ISN’T necessary for anything. An argument could be made for self defense, but there is no need for it for wildlife and such. None of the examples you list would be pertinent up here. But I can see how you, living in the backwoods middle of nowhere, might have use for it.

          SO, I will amend my assertion to say that, for everyone living in civilization, the only real driver is fear. For everyone else, it might be fear, or it might be to defend themselves from marauding bears. 🙂

          • I used to carry a bowie knife that is about the size of Crocodile Dundee’s knife all the time. Can’t even begin to tell you how many times people would say “Now THAT’S a knife!” upon seeing it.

            But I moved from where I preferred to be and in my new surroundings, it became less useful. It got replaced on my belt by other things that I used more regularly.

            Now the biggest knife I carry every day is only about 8″ long– handle included. The other 3 I have on me at all times are even smaller.

          • I have lots of knives all different sizes and all different designs. I have a credit card that folds into a very sharp 2 inch knife, multi tools (my favorite) and knives as long as 12 inches and everything in between.

            Back to the gun issue, I have carried most of my adult life, I have yet to point a handgun at a human. I have killed numerous sick animals, racoons, opossums, feral cats and even put a few deer out of their misery after being hit by vehicles. We kill porcupines any chance we get (they are super destructive and slow which allows the dogs to get whacked with quills). It’s a useful tool and a message to bad people.

  14. Just A Citizen says:

    Strange things this evening in God’s country.

    Power outage about two hours ago in small neighborhood. Supposedly a tree across a line. The one outage after another (5 total so far) with over 12,000 now without power. We are included. But able to post here because of the expensive natural gas generator we had installed when we moved back from Oregon.

    Has been working like a champ, except for a small 5 minute break in service due to short SUL failure. But got it fixed again quickly and now running just fine.

    • You’re quitting the hedge fund industry all together and opening Mathius’ Wood Products.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        That table was pretty FINE.

      • Anita: You’re quitting the hedge fund industry all together and opening Mathius’ Wood Products.

        I WISH!

        I’d have to make a lot of tables to make up for my income.. but I’d be a lot happier.

        JAC: That table was pretty FINE.

        Thank you, sir. That means a lot to me.

        I’m very proud of how it came out but I do worry that people are just “being polite.”

        • Just A Citizen says:

          Mathius

          Not at all. I was pretty impressed by your handy work. Showed not only skills but your potential as a country bumpkin.

          I suggest you move to that farm you bought and take up the more simple life. I am available to CONSULT with you on how to get started in your new life. And to help you figure out how to make some income with the effort.

          • Showed not only skills but your potential as a country bumpkin.

            If it weren’t for my wife and kids, I would probably live in a run down shack on the bayou and consume copious amounts of grog…

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Shortly I’ll be heading to Atlanta to help an an old school friend with making the bar in her new restaurant. Plus all the tile work in a Mediterranean style. Construction ran slower than planned so to meet scheduled opening they couldn’t get contractors to finish the job in the time remaining and also exorbedent prices. It’s taking even 7 days to even get a person to take some measurements so u can do pre production work here. Once I get those and a material deposit , pre production starts. One week here, one week there. Unless once i get to Atlanta, i fear there will be a huge “Honey do” list. Contractors juggling jobs, one gets delayed construction delays snowball. Oh and yes they will PAY. It’s a business. If a personal project for a friend I do those gratis less materials.

          Shop classes in school still continue to be if value, plus continued personal projects to keep my sanity while at IBM and at&t.

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Yep, pretty much captures how many out here feel. Problem is of course the “other story” which he mentions but does not dive into. That being the gutless Republicans who never tried to actually fix any of these problems either.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/08/leaving_the_democrats.html

  16. PHILADELPHIA, PA—Speaking to a packed 30-seat arena, Bill Clinton remarked on Jeffrey Epstein’s recent passing, saying that Epstein’s cause of death “really depends on what your definition of ‘suicide’ is.”

    “Did Epstein commit suicide?” asked an attendee at the event.
    A wide-eyed Clinton shrugged his shoulders. “I mean, it really depends on what your definition of suicide is, heh.”
    An awkward silence ensued. Bill turned to look at Hillary for support, but she just glared at him and ran her finger across her throat, a metaphor that means “death.”
    He went on, “Heh, I mean, well, we’ve got to define terms here, alright? If you mean, ‘Did he hang himself without any outside assistance?’ then I’d say that does not fall under the definition of what may or may not have occurred.”
    Hillary held up a pair of finger guns to her husband’s head in a threatening fashion, another metaphor that means “death.”
    Bill gulped. “But, well, heh, if you mean did he hang himself and then shoot himself three times in the back of the head just to be sure? Then yeah, I’d say he committed suicide.”
    “Hillary and I did not have murderous relations with that man!” he insisted as Hillary beckoned him backstage.

    • Cute.

      You know, something that just occurred to me.

      “They,” whoever “they” are – whether the Clintons or Trump (who ultimately controls the federal prison system and who was a known associate of Epstein and who has a well-established interest younger women) or some as-yet-unknown third party.. whoever “they” are presumably killed Epstein to shut him up.

      This we all agree on as the most likely answer. I can’t say for certain that this wasn’t just a giant screw up and that he did just kill himself. But it seems unlikely, and we all seem to agree that it’s pretty fishy.

      So, yea, operating on the assumption that he was murdered, something interesting occurred to me..

      They made it look like a suicide.

      In Soviet Russia, they would have put two bullets in the back of the guy’s head and dared anyone to say otherwise. In China, he would have just disappeared forever and dared anyone to ask where he went. In Iran, he would have been summarily executed along with anyone asking pesky questions. In Turkey, he would have also have simply vanished. In North Korea, he would have been sent to the Gulag or murdered along with his entire extended family and, again, anyone who even had a daydream about thinking about asking any follow-up questions.

      But these guys went to some trouble to make it look like suicide.

      That means something.

      Something important.

      That means they’re in hiding from We The People.

      That means they’re afraid.

      That means they haven’t won – not completely anyway – because if they had, they wouldn’t be concerned by what we think. They’d just shoot him in the back of the head with impunity.

      And that means there’s still hope.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        It was China or Japan……… because……….

        He was given an “honorable” way out and he took it. We will never know what the proposed cost of not taking the honorable choice was.

        Russia’s preferred method is use of radioactive poison. But that would have been to easy to identify. And if it were the Deep State they certainly would have tried to frame Russia. Oh wait, Joe Scarborough made that connection this morning.

      • This being fishy is an understatement. Waiting for some more facts before making any determination on suicide vs murder.

        • Just saw the Post a few minutes ago when I grabbed lunch… they’re reporting that he hung himself while on his knees by, apparently, leaning forward.

          Now, I don’t claim to be an expert on the subject, but the amount of willpower required to force yourself to simply “lean forward” until you blacked out when you’re able to simply stand up…… ? Let’s call that “extra fishy.”

          Now, if he threw himself forward and snapped his neck, that would be one thing, but that’s not what the Post is reporting.

  17. LOS ANGELES, CA—There was an attempted shooting earlier today but luckily, the police were close by.

    They managed to tackle the shooter’s AR-15 to the floor. They pinned it to the ground and kicked it a few times for good measure, though it did not appear to be resisting arrest.
    Bewildered, the shooter shrugged and slowly backed away.
    “Honestly I was kinda hoping to make a name for myself,” he told reporters later. “But they just blamed the gun. So… well, I guess I won’t be famous after all.”
    “At this point, we aren’t looking for any further suspects,” an FBI official told reporters as the AR-15 was read its rights and hauled away in the back of a police cruiser. “It seems the AR-15 acted entirely of its own volition, without any human operator who might have behavioral or mental issues.”
    “The weapon is obviously a menace that needs to be locked up to prevent any further harm,” he added.
    According to CDC mortality statistics, of the tens of thousands of gun deaths each year, up to 75% are caused by a rogue assault rifle, shotgun, or handgun acting on its own. “It’s a huge problem that needs to be handled better through addressing the mental problems these types of guns might have well before they act out,” a CDC official said.

    “It’s 3 pm. Do you know where your assault rifle is?” he cautioned.
    The assault rifle has been charged with several counts of murder, assault, and domestic terrorism, and will be tried as an adult, sources confirmed.
    At publishing time, the shooter had decided not to use a gun for his next mass attack so that he will get full credit for it.

  18. U.S.—A new candidate has come out of nowhere to surge in the polls in the Democratic primary, and she’s only six years old. Susie Peters of Minneapolis, Minnesota, was on a local news segment where children gave their opinions on world problems, and she asked, “Why can’t we just give everyone everything they want for free?” The message quickly went viral and really resonated with Democratic voters, propelling Susie from unknown to third in most polls, ahead of Bernie Sanders and just behind Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden.

    “She really has a plan for everything,” said Melinda Carlson, one of Susie’s enthusiastic supporters. “While Elizabeth Warren only has a plan for getting people free health care and free college, Susie has a plan to get everyone free everything. She’s truly a visionary.”
    Her new candidacy has upset some of the other candidates, with Bernie Sanders accusing Susie of stealing all his ideas. Others say the math in her plans doesn’t add up, to which Susie says she doesn’t like math and instead likes “Twilight Sparkle.” And President Trump has taken notice, vowing to trounce Susie in the general since Trump himself can “read and write at the level of an eight-year-old.” There are also concerns Susie may be gaffe-prone like Joe Biden, as one day at school Susie referred to her teacher as “Mommy” by mistake, prompting a round of laughter from her classmates.
    Still, Susie has unveiled her new popular campaign slogan, “But I want it!” and has already qualified for the next Democratic presidential debate, though she may not be able to attend since it will be on past her bedtime.

  19. No t happy with the way Trump is reacting to Hong Kong.

    • Haven’t seen much on this (been busy).. what makes you unhappy?

      • Ooops, meant to post this. Not saying I agree with all their conclusions. I don’t, But it gives a lot of information. At this point I want- Supportive words to discourage any harm, that’s what I want.

        https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/08/trump-china-hong-kong-protests-1452624

        • “Trump is telling [Chinese President] Xi Jinping very clearly: ‘Do whatever you want in Hong Kong. All I care about is a trade deal,’”

          Sounds about right for Trump.

          This is the logical end-result of America-First / America-Only.

          Obama would probably be shitting a brick about now. But Trump has been quite clear that he doesn’t give a damn about anyone except America and that we and the rest of the world are in a zero-sum fight to “win” economically, militarily, etc. As such, I see no reason why he would care about democracy in Hong Kong unless it directly benefited us, just as I see no reason he would care about the well-being of any citizens anywhere except domestically.*

          This IS, after all, what much of his base apparently wanted. “A President of America, not the world.” I believe I recall seeing that exact phrasing here. His base hated that Obama was such a globalist, but leaving a friendly territory out to dry is exactly what you get when you abandon globalism entirely in favor of insular nationalism.

          ——–

          * even then, it seems, only if they can help him retain power, but that’s another topic.

          • Question: Should the US go to war with China should China act poorly? I say “HELL NO”.

            • Dale A Albrecht says:

              Keeping the South China Seas open to to shipping and stopping China’s grab claiming the area as theirs. The UN rolled over as did Obama. Trump said hell no and I haven’t heard much since but a few minor incidents. China can not afford the outcome. That is not a war, but a severe loss of their one way trade deals to their biggest markets.

              Hong Kong, is the goose that laid their golden egg. If the communist government goes to far they’ll lose control of their entire country.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            In my opinion you have seriously misunderstood Mr. Trump’s position and his efforts negotiating with these countries.

            You also misrepresent America First as some zero sum game. That is not the case and I have never heard Mr. Trump indicate that he believes this. All he has fought for is that the USA be treated equally and fairly when it comes to trade. That we not give up our economic interests in trade deals in order to further some globalist notion that we can support global change via giving away the farm at home.

            So now you equate “insular nationalism” with “non interference in other country’s business”?? So I guess that means that “globalism” requires interfering in other nations’s business. So now that we have established what you are we are just haggling over the price.

    • Not much Trump can do. His best move is to wait and see what happens.

      • Tend to agree.

        This IS China’s territory, after all.

        Not really sure what he can do that wouldn’t make the situation worse.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      V.H.

      I understand your frustration but I also understand that why right now would not be a good time to get all preachy about China and Hong Kong.

  20. Just A Citizen says:

    Thoughts and questions.

    Read summary of lawsuits against FACEBOOK for violating privacy laws in I think it was Indiana. Namely, collecting facial recognition data without consent.

    Is not FACEBOOK an “interstate” commercial provider? If so, then does not Fed. law trump State law on this? How can States impose restrictions on companies doing interstate business in hopes of gaining their own control over said companies? Don’t such State laws actually impede “interstate” commerce?

    Now for the kicker. Since FACEBOOK is free…….. how can it qualify as commerce at all? Is not the commercial aspect really limited to its relationship with advertisers and licensees seeking access to its platform?

    • I have a Facebook account, to remind me of birthdays. I rarely post and simply don’t need it. Same goes for the other social media sites, I have NONE.

      Does it qualify commerce? Yes, many business’s have Facebook pages.

    • Is not FACEBOOK an “interstate” commercial provider? If so, then does not Fed. law trump State law on this? How can States impose restrictions on companies doing interstate business in hopes of gaining their own control over said companies? Don’t such State laws actually impede “interstate” commerce?

      Your question is like asking “how can California require seat-belts in cars when the companies do business as interstate businesses.” Of course it can. The fact that it’s an internet business “selling” intangibles is wholly irrelevant.

      States can’t supersede federal law, but they are completely free to add their own laws. If the federal government is silent on the issue, there’s nothing to stop any given state (or city for that matter) from passing its own laws.

      FB can comply with Indiana’s laws, or it can choose not to do business in Indiana. Wanna bet there’d be an uproar if they threatened to shut down access in Indiana? The government would fold before the ink was dry on Zuckerberg’s signature.

      (Incidentally, I lost my Bittrex.com account because they are unwilling to comply with NY state law re cryptocurrency and shut down my account.)

      how can it qualify as commerce at all? Is not the commercial aspect really limited to its relationship with advertisers and licensees seeking access to its platform?

      This is a really interesting question, actually.

      I had never considered this.

      It’s a given that, if you aren’t paying for a service, then you are the service. FB is free to you because “you” are what it is selling to advertisers / data aggregators.

      Let me know if you ever get an actual answer to this..

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        The more I thought about it I think it is still a Commercial business in that it collects information and sells it. Much like any private business that collects business/economic data and sells it to subscribers.

        It also sells access to the platform. At least I assume it does. In this case it is not selling anything tied to a State. The platform is universally available.

        The seat belt example does not apply as the seat belt does not really affect the product being sold itself. Laws restricting collection of data directly affect the product…….data.

        Still have some thinking to do on this but the internet is much like insurance, it is hard for me to see it as actual “commerce” in the regulatory sense allowed by the Constitution.

        While States can, per SCOTUS, impose laws where the Feds are silent, the same SCOTUS ruled against States which impose laws that restrict interstate commerce allowed by the Feds. It also codified the Fed ability to control private consumption based on the spurious connection to “impacting regulation of interstate commerce”.

        Like I said, I need to diagram this and give it more thought.

        By the way, the FACEBOOK example may not be the best because this was a privacy issue and the Evil Empire was apparently collecting the data without user knowledge. But what if the Empire told the user, we use your data and that is the cost of you having access? What power should the State have at that point?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        One other piece. In a recent court decision the Wizards ruled that the abscence of action by Congress implies intent regarding federal control…the case was the budget and the wall.

        Well if lack of action on a particular issue implies intent then why would not lack of Fed laws controlling an internet company imply Fed intent to NOT constrain the commerce? And if so, wouldn’t any State action which constrains such commerce be violating the Federal authority and “implied” goals of regulation?

        We need Buck

  21. Just A Citizen says:

    Thought:

    If productivity increases then wages can increase. So goes the argument, especially from the “L”ibertarians.

    But the argument fails to address the full equation, just as Mathius’ argument for higher minimum wage failed.

    If productivity increases the output per unit of labor (man-hour………. OMG did I say man outloud?) then profits increase per unit of labor and some of that profit can go to increase wages. BUT…………………

    Increasing output also increases SUPPLY. And if that increased supply does not meet an increase in demand………..PRICES will fall. Thus REDUCING the profits made by increasing production.

    As for the left wing (Marxist) arguments about the wealthy taking all the productivity gains, lets look at how that might happen. If the “marginal profit” per unit of output remains constant and total profit is based on increased output, then the “SHARE” of profit margins will not change. Lets say that the company passes 50% to new wages and keeps 50% for future capital improvements. Doubling output doubles both shares.

    Assume $5/unit profit.

    $5/unit x 100 units = $500; Labor and Company each get $250
    $5/unit x 200 units = $1,000; Labor and Company each get $500

    Now lets look at a $/unit decrease due to increased supply. For exaggeration we will assume doubling output cut $/unit price in half.

    $2.50/unit x 200 units = $500; Labor and Company each get $250.

    Now imagine what happens if the $/unit drops below the original “total profit” level. That’s right. The company will still keep whatever percentage is needed to hold its share at $250 or more. Thus the Labor share of profit will decrease in proportion to the Company.

    I hate the whole productivity drives up wages argument because there are so many other variables included in the cost and pricing of goods.

    So I think it far better to point out that productivity gains effectively reduce COSTS and thus PRICE. Thus the “savings” or “economic benefit” of increased productivity is felt across consumer market. EVERYONE that buys XYZ benefits by reducing their cost of goods purchased.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      All the manufacturing efficiencies in the 20’s increased output for sure. But only a certain portion if the population could buy outright that output, cars as an example. The next tier required a loan but also had no problem meeting the financial obligation. The market was saturated. However to keep production up loans came about and made available to those that absolutely had no business getting a loan. Any hiccup they’d default. Thus was one if the elements leading to the 29 crash.

      Sound familiar. The housing collapse recently causing a global recession. Congress kept insisting loans be made to keep the building industry from stalling due to less demand. Renting an apartment was so declassy . Giving rise to Countrywide and others

  22. https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/trump-brilliantly-mocks-chris-cuomos-unhinged-fredo-rant-nuts/

    Cuomo has some serious thin skin. But this Trump Tweet might say something that is more important to think about:

    In a followup post, he questioned whether Cuomo would be given a “Red Flag for his recent rant” and be prohibited from obtaining a firearm.
    “Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!” Trump added.

    Cuomo just shot his mouth off and would have probably gotten his ass whooped, BUT, he did threaten physical violence, the exact type of thing that could push Red Flag laws into action. Needless to say, I’m against Red Flag laws. They would hurt more than help, because we can already make calls if someone is a threat. But even with Red Flag laws, if people are to scared to call, then it’s useless.

  23. Canine Weapon says:
  24. Just A Citizen says:
    • D*mn, that’s the best argument for gun rights I’ve ever read. American history!

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Biden has always been an idiot. Couldn’t even note what Thomas Jefferson said, about the Tree of Liberty being watered from time to time.

  25. https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=13561

    I don’t even know what to say – well, some words come to mind

    • Ah yes, the liberal utopia of South Dakota……

      As far as I can tell, it SEEMS to be suggesting that, when having a larger discussion, people should first consider if they, being the majority, are swamping the minority or if they’re really contributing. I guess that’s a good thing…?

      THAT SAID, while the article accuses this of “left-leaning bias” and “liberal bias,” I see nothing here to suggest that, specifically. It doesn’t say anything about what minorities need to be “made space for”.. it could be something like “98% of the campus is liberal.. let’s make sure we don’t ‘swamp out’ the voices of the conservative minorities.”

      That would mean that, maybe, people who don’t “have something unique to offer” don’t need to speak for the sake of speaking, but rather can shut up and listen. Imagine being the only conservative in a room full of liberals and they all keep trying to talk over you, but you’re the only one who has a unique perspective that might add value.. seems reasonable to suggest that they should (ugh) “make space for you” to add your two cents.

      Something I find very telling is that they obtained a full presentation… and then showed us a single slide.

      Like a narrowly cropped quote, it always feels like we’re being manipulated through the selective providing and withholding of select data.

      I’ll withhold final judgement, but it feels to me like a poorly phrased effort of saying “make sure you let people with different viewpoints get a word in edgewise or else the conversation is just a circle-jerk” which is fairly innocuous. Then the “liberal bias and abuse on campus” reporter for Campus Reform (who, I’m certain has no agenda of her own) published one page out of a whole presentation along with a bunch of loaded charges. Some conservatives played the victim card. And here we are.

      But again, that’s just my impression. Just a big nothingburger that would clear up with more context and information, but which we’re supposed to be outraged over. THAT SAID, I’m open to being shown I’m wrong. Who knows? Not me. Maybe they were saying “white people shouldn’t talk, only minorities”.. that would certainly be pretty messed up.

      • I don’t know how to convince you that you are denying reality. The left has been singing in chorus for a loooooog time about minorities being oppressed by white people and everyone else they don’t deem real minorities. And it’s not just random individuals on the left saying these things. Now they’re giving out forms telling people entering law school that they should shut up because some how their talking denies the oppressed the ability to talk( they’re starting law school for goodness sake, they better be able to talk ) , unless of course they are only saying things that support the oppressed. And you think we should ignore all that prior action and actually believe they are referring to conservatives, or white people as the left likes to call us, as the oppressed. Don’t you find that a little impossible to believe, a denial of reality, perhaps.

        • The left has been singing in chorus for a loooooog time about minorities being oppressed by white people

          Yes, and though your mileage may vary, there IS something to be said for the truth of this.

          Ask yourself this one simple question: if you were to a blank slate and going to be born into America, and could pick your race/religion/sexual orientation, would you choose something other white and Christian and straight?

          If there’s no advantage to being white, Christian, and straight, why would you prefer it over an middle-eastern, Muslim, and gay?

          And it’s not just random individuals on the left saying these things.

          Agreed.

          This is a MAINSTREAM left/liberal/Democratic position.

          We broadly agree that minorities are oppressed/discriminated against by the majority. That majority just so happens to be white.

          We do NOT broadly agree on the specifics or extent of that discrimination, however. Nor on the appropriate course of action to take.

          Now they’re giving out forms telling people entering law school that they should shut up because some how their talking denies the oppressed the ability to talk( they’re starting law school for goodness sake, they better be able to talk )

          Yes, but again, nothing in the FACTS IN EVIDENCE show any indication of what minorities they’re talking about. If you’re having a discussion of a movie everyone loves, you should maybe (ugh) “make room” for the guy who hated it to speak his peace because he might have a useful perspective.

          unless of course they are only saying things that support the oppressed.

          OBJECTION!

          Assumes facts not in evidence.

          (and, unlike these kids, I didn’t even go to law school!)

          And you think we should ignore all that prior action and actually believe they are referring to conservatives, or white people as the left likes to call us, as the oppressed.

          Not at all!

          I’m not suggesting we should believe anything of the sort.

          What I’m saying is that we shouldn’t conclude it’s a left-ist, white-hating, evil, manipulative plot without sufficient evidence.

          What I’m saying is that you’ve fit it into the broader narrative and INFERRED its terrible-ness without sufficient justification.

          What I’m saying is that the author of the article is biased, the evidence provided carefully cropped and devoid of all context, and the umbrage on the right is unsupported by the given evidence.

          I’m NOT saying it’s innocent. What I’m saying is that we don’t have enough to show guilt.

          • https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/traffic-signals-racist/

            Video imbedded.

            College campuses are no longer the bastions of free speech and thought they once were. What may have once been an experience to open young minds to new concepts and ideas is now a ruthless machine of conformity, molding unsuspecting students into proud liberals.
            A new video published by Campus Reform shows that gullible students at George Washington University don’t need to fork over hundreds of thousands of dollars to support a ludicrously leftist ideology.
            Students on the video were asked to sign a fake petition that read, “As we students cross the street, we are told by the symbol of a white man when it is okay to cross. Many students from diverse backgrounds, including individuals of color, gender fluid individuals, and LGBTQA+ individuals, feel oppressed by this.”
            And it didn’t take much convincing before they began endorsing the move.

            • “A shocking new report shows that kids are stupid. In other news, water is reportedly wet. Tune in at 11 for the whole story.”

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Were you that stupid? I know I wasn’t. And most of my peers weren’t either.

              • Were you that stupid?

                I thank god every day that I was born before the internet really took off so that there is almost no record of just how stupid I was.

                I was profoundly stupid.

                And, worse that just being stupid, I was stupid AND full of unearned confidence in my “superior” intelligence.

                I know I wasn’t.

                Sure ya were!

                Well, you may not have been that gullible… but stupid? Unless you were born as a 20-something-year-old, you absolutely were this stupid, and then some.

                And most of my peers weren’t either.

                Sure they were!

    • “Laws” never really apply to anyone else.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Italy and Sicily had very strict gun laws. The law abiding people were disarmed. The NON law abiding elements of the society were as well armed as the police and military police and most military personnel. Rarely did the use of tanks be called upon for law enforcement, saw it once. Police did not have ti waste time opening their trunk to get automatic weapons.. they carried then openly at all times. So did the mafia. Bombings were a regular event. Shooting and killing officials and industrialists daily news. Innocent people getting caught in the crossfire between gangs seeking control of the drug trade. If the State tried stopping it, more often then not the official or judiciary were assassinated. Rocket attacks, airspace defended against intrusions with deadly force

      That was Sicily in the 70’s and beyond. Civilized western Europe.

  26. Dale A Albrecht says:

    As a singer I sing at many funerals & I was recently asked by a funeral director to play & sing at a graveside service for a homeless man. He had no family or friends, so the service was to be at a pauper’s cemetery out in the country. As I was not familiar with the area, I got lost. I finally arrived an hour late and saw that the funeral guy had evidently gone and the hearse was nowhere in sight. There were only the diggers and crew left and they were eating lunch. I felt badly and apologized to the men for being late. I went to the side of the grave and looked down and the vault lid was already in place. I didn’t know what else to do, so I started to play. The workers put down their lunches and began to gather around. I played out my heart and soul for this man with no family and friends. I sang like I’ve never played before for this homeless man.

    As I sang & played “Amazing Grace”, the workers began to weep. They wept, I wept, we all wept together. When I finished, I packed up my keyboard and started for my car. Though my head hung low, my heart was full.

    As I opened the door to my car, I heard one of the workers say, “I’ve never seen nothin’ like that before and I’ve been putting in septic tanks for twenty years.” Apparently, I’m still lost….

  27. Just A Citizen says:

    I thought she would be much better than this. BAD, BAD, BAD law.

    https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/14/martha-mcsally-domestic-terrorism-1462301

    Check out this quote:

    ““For too long we have allowed those who commit heinous acts of domestic terrorism to be charged with related crimes that don’t portray the full scope of their hateful actions,” she said. “That stops with my bill. The bill I am introducing will give federal law enforcement the tools they have asked for so that they can punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law.””

    Now do you have that? She is making a NEW criminal law to EXPAND prosecutor’s choices, then claims this is needed to allow LE to punish criminals to the fullest extent of the law. So what is preventing them from prosecuting people now under the fullest extent of the law now? This ladies and gentlemen is how political types obfuscate the English language itself.

    The worst part of this is that Mr. Kelly is running against her. Leaving the poor folks in AZ with a choice between a shit sandwich on white and a shit sandwich on whole wheat.

  28. Canine Weapon says:

  29. Canine Weapon says:

    (2nd attempt)

  30. Dale A Albrecht says:

    This peaceful Boko Hareem has spread from Nigeria into neighboring countries killing and mutilating Christians and whomever was not as devote as them

  31. https://www.allsides.com/blog/audit-google-heavily-favors-cnn-and-left-media-mass-shooting-coverage

    The only thing I’ll add, which I feel wasn’t really covered in here is that the left relentlessly and breathlessly covers shootings since it supports their preferred narrative. The right is more inclined to provide less coverage. As such, we might expect an over-representation on the left. I’m not saying this accounts for the findings, merely that it’s a potential factor which appears largely unaccounted for.

    I’d also point out that they’ve reached no conclusion as to the cause, whether it’s a deliberate move or a consequence of their algorithm.

    Still.. interesting…

    • Irs deliberate and the article says yhat these results match those of previous audits. The only people who are seemingly blind to Google and social media sites that clearly favor the Left and suppress the Right are those who chose to be blind. The evidence is OVERWHELMING.

      • … one might argue that left-leaning sources are more reputable and trustworthy than right leaning ones, which is why they rank higher… 🙂

        • After screaming Russian collusion for 3 years, im sure you would believe that, just like there are Communists who love this country. SMH

          • The left is biased.

            The right is straight up propaganda.

            ::shrug::

            I like the site which was the source of that article AllSides.com. They are the the most neutral site I know at the moment.

            • I agree on Allsides, good site that gives the political ratings. As far as conservative leaning media being propaganda, i would figure all on the Left see it that way because many if not all conservatives see the liberal media as part of the DNC and in some cases, outright Communists. I have seen snd heard outright racists on MSNBC and CNN.

              Just curious what stuff on the right do you see as propaganda?

              • Just curious what stuff on the right do you see as propaganda?

                I’ll stipulate in advance that when I said “Fox,” it would be unfair of me to use that to refer to the entirety of the Fox News apparatus. They do plenty of legitimate news.

                An interesting thing happens on the dividing line between Fox “News” and Fox “Opinion” News. While the former is a classical news agency, maybe a bit more conservative, but otherwise legitimate, the later is unbounded by any sort of obligation to be objective. There have been a bunch of ex employees speaking out about the political bias at play.

                The “opinion” news shows include Hannity and Fox & Friends. Several hours a day of “opinion” “news.” There are, of course, others, but these two probably top the list. They are constant streams of pro-Trump messaging. Tons of interviews with the President where he is given a free platform to say whatever he wants, unchallenged.

                These “opinion” news – the (often) prime time shows – are relentlessly negative and hostile to Trump’s enemies and the Democrats while parroting Trump’s message. They bury negative Trump news.

            • The left is biased propaganda.

              The right is propaganda.

              You can thank Obama for that.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Well stated Kent.

    • I don’t know if I can trust this news source, the author seems like a raving lunatic… I mean, look at his hair!!

      I didn’t want to believe it, but I must accept the evidence unless more evidence comes to light. I can’t help but wonder why accepting evidence is such a difficult thing for humans to do.

      Motivated reasoning and confirmation bias are powerful things..

      The short answer is very, very simple: being wrong feels bad. Being right feels good. People, therefore, will go to great lengths to feel like they’re right.

      • Yeah. The Hair.
        Not long after I started writing for the paper a woman was very offended by my column so she took the time to email me, telling me I look “unkept” (Whew! Good. I don’t want to be kept.) disparaging my parents and upbringing, and telling me to go back where I came from. I wrote her back and told her this is where I was born. She never replied.

        • What kind of absolute mouth-breathing moron would tell someone born in America to go back to where they come from?

      • I never learn anything by being right, but I do sometimes learn from being wrong. And I like to learn…

  32. Just A Citizen says:
    • As a non-religious person, I find religion to be absolutely unnecessary in my life.

      I have plenty of meaning and an over-abundance of principle (so much, in fact, that I come here to help sort it all out)

      • Dale A Albrecht says:

        Most things in nature stand with others of their own kind. Animals, especially humans. They require that social protection and support. It also lends a built in excuse, everybody I know does it.

        I have had zero use for “organized” religion. However, a good solid foundation of ethics and behavior and how to get along without violation of my ethics has worked for me. If a continued relationship be it personal or business violates those standards and can not be reconciled i move on. I do not need group support to enjoy my life.

        Way back in ’75 I got to know my first CPO and his wife pretty well. I asked her how she got along with chiefs long deployments. She said 1st she stays as far away from the “Support” groups well established on bases. They just reinforce the bad thoughts because everyone thinks the same. End results usually anger and divorce. She was a practicing psychologist and just kept away from the base and gir in with HER career.

  33. What is the consensus opinion in these parts about electronic voting machines without paper audit trails?

    Good? Bad? Recipe for fraud? Great?

    • Terrible idea. Absolutely no transparency. Huge opportunity for fraud.

        • Dale A Albrecht says:

          Easiest way to commit voter fraud. No record but “the computer says”

          • Agreed. The technological answer is usually the best one, but not always.

            Now. For the followup. What do you make of the list of states planning to use electronic voting:

            Texas – Red
            Louisiana – Red
            Tennessee – Red
            Mississippi – Red
            Kansas – Red
            Indiana – Red
            Kentucky – Red
            New Jersey – Blue

            We all know that New Jersey is the notoriously corrupt arm-pit of America, but what do you make of the rest of that list…

            • Just A Citizen says:

              Computers are cheaper than paper. But obviously the opportunity for fraud is great. At least in theory. Not sure that is accurate when applied on precinct by precinct basis. Kind of depends on the checks and balances for the computer software/hardware and chain of custody.

              Frankly, I am more concerned over mail in ballots than paperless machines. Also, seems it would be easy to produce a paper receipt for the voter to cross check.

              • The thing about computers is that if you can enter one corrupt vote, you can enter 100,000 votes. If you can get a single machine, you can potentially throw the entire district.

                As someone who does cybersecurity for a living (Mathius, CISSP), I’ll tell you the very idea of “cybersecurity” is a laughable joke. As someone who is a pretty good programmer, I’ll also tell you that “bulletproof” code for anything more complicated than a tic-tac-toe game is dramatically more difficult than you might imagine.

                Then there’s that whole issue of whether the people building the machines even want them to be accurate.. concerns like… this.. and even more saliently.. this.

              • Dale A Albrecht says:

                Mail in,. Boxes of ballots mysteriously arriving that all voted for Al Franken after the judge ruled only one more recount and the difference was the R incumbent was 460 ahead. Just enough votes showed up in the trunk of a car never counted before

              • https://ballotpedia.org/Voting_methods_and_equipment_by_state

                Direct Recording Electronic (DRE) Systems: DRE systems employ computers that record votes directly into the computers’ memory. These interfaces may incorporate touchscreens, dials, or mechanical buttons. The voter’s choices are stored by the computer on a cartridge or hard drive. Some DRE systems are also equipped with a printer, which the voter may use to confirm his or her choices before committing them to the computer’s memory. The paper records can be preserved to be tabulated in case of an audit or recount.[1]

                What exactly does this mean when it says the paper records can be preserved? How would that work?

            • Ohio an Pa have been using electronic voting for over a decade, is your list a list of new States?

              • According to the article, PA is going back to paper. It didn’t mention Ohio by name, but said that of the states that were paperless, only 8 will be in 2020 (those listed above), so presumably Ohio would be included in that?

              • Thanks, i would prefer paper ballots vs computer voting.

  34. Dale A Albrecht says:

    The Shenshan sport complex 4 km from the border if Hong Kong is full of tanks and other military vehicles. Satellite images show. The Chinese government also broadcast the buildup.

    Hint

    Our interference will be limited to dissolution of trade. That’ll be sufficient

    • Not really sure what we CAN do.

      It’s their territory.

      We might not like it, but short of going to war (not an option), our only levers are (A) verbal condemnation and other meaningless slaps on the wrist (B) “thoughts and prayers” and (C) economic.

      As we’re already mid trade-war with China, I don’t see much ammunition left in option C.

      I mean, there’s always the good old fashioned fallback of the CIA dropping duffel bags of money and arming/training “insurgents”… that’s always worked out well in the long run.

      ————

      I suppose there’s one more option which worked out remarkably well for a certain rebellious region in 1836…………

  35. Colonel!

    A proposal for “solving” Hong Kong.

    Now, hear me out, and let me know if any of this sounds familiar to you.

    Hong Kong doesn’t really want to be part of China, but it’s not strong enough to stand on its own. But what if it declared independence as some kind of “lone” “republic.” They could hang out for a little while (getting their asses kicked and hiding out in doomed forts) and then agree to be annexed by some other country. Maybe they could pick a country with some kind of expansionary “destiny”.. someone who might enjoy sticking their thumb in China’s eye… someone whose President is so bat-shit crazy, he might actually think this is a good plan…

    ———–

    Then maybe, after a while, they could apply for statehood and spend the next two centuries bitching about how they are really their own country.

  36. JAC,

    Question: Why now?

    Why is China cracking down on Hong Kong now?

    Why not ten years ago? Why not when they took possession of the city? Why not next year?

    A possible answer that I haven’t fully fleshed out in my mind has to do with the trade war.

    As the US is using all it’s leverage right now on the Trade War, it really doesn’t leave much additional leverage available to do anything about HK.

    As I said, I haven’t really thought this through, but I’d be interested in your take…

    • Just A Citizen says:

      They were not ready yet. Remember, the past ten years was spent propping up an economy in order to build up its military and construct forts/islands in the SE Asia shipping lanes.

      I think the demonstrations provided them with the “excuse” they have been looking for. I am not convinced that who is sitting in the POTUS chair or the trade war/talks has anything to do with Hong Kong. Not at the core level.

      Question is: Do they want Hong Kong in full, or do they just want to control the flow of wealth, or are they afraid of having a few million Liberty loving crazies living in their midst.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Another thought. Maybe there is trouble in China and the leadership needs a diversion. Or something they can use to brag about how they backed the USA off. Think here about China and Russia getting more cozy lately and how Russia has done this for some of the same reasons.

      Let us also remember their GOAL.

      1. Reunify China, per their more ancient empires or per their current party desires.
      2. Replace the USA as THE global hegemony.

      They think and act, strategically and tactically in the long term compared to the rest of the world. They will capture any opportunity supportive of their goals when ever the chance arises.

      Oh, one other key factor. I think the Chinese want Trump defeated. Per the Democratic rhetoric, and the RHINO’s, on trade I suspect they are betting on anyone but Trump. The tariffs or halting of Ag trade and now Hong Kong fits into this tactical objective. They think it will weaken his chances for election.

    • Good question. China was supposed to leave Hong Kong unchanged until 2047.

      On another note, I’m hearing that a LOT of people crossing the southern border are from Hong Kong. Maybe our Colonel can confirm/refute this claim? By the way, The Colonel has been eerily absent.

      In accordance with the “One country, two systems” principle agreed between the United Kingdom and the People’s Republic of China, the socialist system of the People’s Republic of China would not be practiced in the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR), and Hong Kong’s previous capitalist system and its way of life would remain unchanged for a period of 50 years. This would have left Hong Kong unchanged until 2047.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Handover_of_Hong_Kong

  37. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Mathius… this for you

    Where are my car keys?
    They were not in my pockets
    Suddenly I realized I must have left them in the car.
    Frantically, I headed for the parking lot.
    My son had warned me many times for leaving my keys in the car’s ignition. He’s afraid that the car could be stolen.
    As I looked around the parking lot, I realized he was right.
    The parking lot was empty. I immediately called the police.
    I gave them my location, confessed that I had left my keys in the car, and that it had been stolen
    Then I made the most difficult call of all to my son:
    ” I left my keys in the car and it’s been stolen.”
    There was a moment of silence. I thought the call had been disconnected, but then I heard his voice.

    “Are you kidding me?” He barked, “I dropped you off!”
    Now it was my turn to be silent. Embarrassed, I said,
    “Well, come and get me.”
    He retorted……….

    “I will, as soon as I convince this cop that I didn’t steal your damn car!”

  38. Dale A Albrecht says:

    Airman Jones was assigned to the induction center, where he advised new recruits about their government benefits, especially their GI insurance.
    It wasn’t long before Captain Smith noticed that Airman Jones was having a staggeringly high success-rate, selling insurance to nearly 100% of the recruits he advised.
    Rather than ask about this, the Captain stood in the back of the room and listened to Jones’ sales pitch.
    Jones explained the basics of the GI Insurance to the new recruits, and then said:
    “If you have GI Insurance and go into battle and are killed, the government has to pay $200,000 to your beneficiaries.
    If you don’t have GI insurance, and you go into battle and get killed, the government only has to pay a maximum of $6000.
    Now,” he concluded, “which group do you think they are going to send into battle first?”

  39. It says my comment is in moderation – it’s never said that before.

  40. Testing

  41. Let me in

  42. Testing

  43. Dale A Albrecht says:

  44. LONDON—Historians now believe that King George III “instantly and severely” regretted not implementing red flag laws on the deranged American colonists.

    “Blast it all, why didn’t I think of that?” the king had said to a friend later on, according to new sources. “We could have just said guys like that ungrateful George Washington and that Jefferson fellow were mentally unstable and grabbed all their guns.”
    While the British did try to implement some gun control leading up to the American Revolution, it was too little, too late. According to scholars, a well-timed red flag law could have prevented the whole thing, all under the pretense of trying to stop gun violence.
    “I could have looked compassionate and tough on crime,” George had confided in some guards in his castle or palace or wherever a British king guy lives. “But instead, I lost the colonies. Ungrateful savages! By Jove! Someone bring me some tea.”

  45. Can we start calling Mathius – Fredo? Because he is the black sheep of our family.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Maybe Heeb!! I here it is like the N word for jewish people.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Fredo simply means a less than bright sibling. I think our Matt is bright….but misguided ….and a dodger of direct questions…..That convinces me he is often funning with us!

  46. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Were you that stupid?

    I thank god every day that I was born before the internet really took off so that there is almost no record of just how stupid I was.

    I was profoundly stupid.

    And, worse that just being stupid, I was stupid AND full of unearned confidence in my “superior” intelligence.

    I know I wasn’t.

    Sure ya were!

    Well, you may not have been that gullible… but stupid? Unless you were born as a 20-something-year-old, you absolutely were this stupid, and then some.

    And most of my peers weren’t either.

    Sure they were!

    SORRY ME BUCKO, BUT NO WAY IN HELL. Want proof? We didn’t even have signs with stick figures because we could READ THE DAMN WORDS…WALK and STOP. Wasn’t till you cream puff progressives came along that we started using stick figures and sign language to convey a simple message of SLOW or SLIPPERY ROAD.

    By the time I was a Senior in college I was running 20 man fire crews and a project crew in the summer. In college we actually took time to discuss things like Mein Kampf (sophomore year term paper on that one). There were no subjects off limits on campus. Professors on the “other side” of campus were notably Left of Center, although many were just plain “Liberal”, while on my side they were more conservative.

    Sorry mate, but you will never convince me that we were just as stupid as these college aged kids I see today. Granted, we don’t often see the smarter ones on TV or internet. But I have talked to far to many employers to think I am off by much.

  47. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    Why is China doing this now? Jeez what an easy question. The US is pressuring China economically. The US is messing with the “special” relationship with N. Korea. Everybody pretty much has forgotten that the Brits set up and ran Hong Kong for 100 years, If China loses “face” with the US, which IT ALREADY HAS, it give others, the folks from Hong Kong for an example, an opportunity to build on that, dissidents must be crushed as they were at Tienanmen square a while back (also largely forgotten), It may give people in Tibet and elsewhere ideas.

    Anybody ever wonder what happened to that guy that stood in front of the tank? Or, the tank driver?

%d bloggers like this: