Happy Thanksgiving

thWMM12CLR

Comments

  1. 😎

  2. ATLANTA, GA—In this week’s Democratic debate, a wide gap emerged between the candidates as they laid out their competing visions to cripple the country’s economy.

    In a crowded field, the Democratic candidates are scrambling to set themselves apart as the one with the most effective plan to crush our economic growth.
    Elizabeth Warren claimed to have the most effective plan by far, citing the fact that she would cripple the economy with a $52 trillion Medicare for all plan. Buttigieg quickly fired back, saying he could destroy the nation’s prosperous economic growth in half the time and also reminding everyone that he is a gay man. Cory Booker shouted, “I AM SPARTACUS!” and seemed not to understand what the discussion was about, while Biden argued with him and said that he’s actually Spartacus, appearing to believe himself to be living in the Roman Empire in the First Century B.C.
    Kamala Harris had an innovative plan to set herself apart: arrest everybody in the country so nobody can work at all.
    Andrew Yang said some stuff too but was bleeped out by network censors.
    The runaway winner from the night appeared to be Bernie Sanders, who seemed to have the firmest grasp of the best way to crash an economy, pointing to his lifelong study of Soviet-style communism and other failed socialist states all over the world.
    “Sanders is a clear favorite, but let’s not count out Warren or Biden yet,” said one MSNBC commentator after the debate. “In a tight race like this, there are a number of candidates just insane and ignorant of basic economics enough that any one of them could bring this all crumbling to the ground.”
    The candidates were also distinguished from one another by exactly how much free stuff each person wanted to give away, with some candidates looking to give away as much free stuff as possible, and others planning to give away just a little bit less than that.

    • Trump: he is presumed honest unless he admits to lying in front of a public notary on nationally TV and signs the transcript in blood while swearing upon a bible.

      Anyone critical of Trump: they’re liars because… body language.

      • I have always had fun watching when the news anchors bring on a “body language expert”.

        Really? The only place I have ever seen it actually work is on the border with security cameras at the bridge. We had guys that could look at body language and facial expressions and know right away if the persons were “dirty”….It was at minimum 90% accurate.

      • Trump ain’t got nothing of Schiff and Pelosi. Compared to them, he is an angel 😛

        • Objection! Irrelevant!

          You stand accused of demanding different burdens of proof for those you like and those you do not like. You stand accused of positioning the bar such that proving pro-Trump individuals are lying so high as to be impossibly to meet. Whereas the bar for those opposing Trump amounts to some nebulous claim of “body language” by a person who explicitly disclaims that he’s not a body language expert.

          Just like, Friday, you posted how Schiff was dirty based on the thinnest possible thread of a connection to Burisma.

          Pro Trump: Absolute iron clad unambiguous rock solid proof must be supplied in triplicate by sources personally approved by gman and countersigned by at least three cannonized saints and all of the Harlem Globe Trotters.

          Anti Trump: Whatever anyone says about them, I’ll believe it and repost it. Body language? Sure! A connection to a connection to a dirty company? Sure! Some guy’s LSD-addled fever dream…? SURE!

          • Red herrings aside, G’s, or my, or anyone else’s herring is usually also true. But you always dismiss them as anecdotal or de- cockateel , (that d e q word), or whatever other fallacy you decide to whip out. Just…dismissed…like it never happened. But Trump….always happens…because TRUMP!

            • Red herrings aside, G’s, or my, or anyone else’s herring is usually also true

              I might push back on that “usually,” but whatever.

              Red herrings aside, G’s, or my, or anyone else’s herring is usually also true

              Be that as it may, it’s still wholly irrelevant to the point I was making.

              If you said “Hillary Clinton should go to jail for that time she killed and at seven orphans during the Presidential debate,” and I replied: “LOOK BEHIND YOU!” and threw a smoke bomb, that’s not a valid response. It’s an obfuscation.

              I am objecting to Gman’s egregious double-standards. He responds that Trump isn’t as bad as Schiff. That’s not even a Tu Quoque, it’s just straight up misdirection.

              M: “You’re biased.”
              G: “Well, your politicians eats orphans!”

              See the problem?

              Even if it’s true that my politician does have a craving for the flesh of orphans, that has no bearing whatsoever one my charge that Gman is biased.

              But you always dismiss them as anecdotal or de- cockateel , (that d e q word), or whatever other fallacy you decide to whip out.

              Well, then stop using anecdotes in lieu of strong evidence. And never use de-cockatiels…

              That Q-word, as seen above is Tu Quoque (pronounced Too-Kwo-Q). It basically just translates to “you, too” which is to say you aren’t defending against an accusation or refuting it at all in any sort of valid syllogism, all you’re doing is just saying “yea, but you..!”

              “I think Trump was wrong to throw all those orphans in a volcano sacrifice in order to appease the gods and ensure a victory in 2020.”
              “Well Hillary Clinton killed and ate those orphans during the debate!”

              Well, so what? What does one have to do with the other. Is Trump not wrong regardless? Does the fact that she is also responsible for killing orphans (presumably harvested from her pedophile pizza parlor) change anything Trump has done? Is he less wrong because she did it, too? Or it this just another way of obfuscating? (Don’t look at Trump, look at Clinton!)

              THAT is the fallacy. It’s that you’re not arguing the thing being argued. You’re trying to sidestep it by shifting to attack the other party.

              Just…dismissed…like it never happened. But Trump….always happens…because TRUMP!

              … I’ll be honest.. I’m not sure what you’re getting at here…

              you decide to whip out.

              Hey now! This is a family-friendly blog! I didn’t whip anything out…

              or whatever other fallacy you decide

              Well… if you don’t like it, I believe you have a get out of one logical fallacy card somewhere in the archives…

              • All I said is that the article was interesting. Why do you insist on getting your panties all bunched up over something that is simply “interesting”? I didn’t say it was true, or false, just interesting. Yet, your panties are in a bunch, WTF?

              • “I think Trump was wrong to throw all those orphans in a volcano sacrifice in order to appease the gods and ensure a victory in 2020.”
                “Well Hillary Clinton killed and ate those orphans during the debate!”

                So those who stood idly by while Hillary killed and ate orphans are now upset that Donald threw orphans into a volcano for a sacrifice to the gods? Did I get that right?

                Sounds like hypocrisy to me. Until the left care about what Hillary/Bill/Holder/Lerner/etc have done, I don’t care one bit what Donald does. His policies are good for me.

                Oh, and Comey and his “intent” has completely destroyed this country.

                We just had a local murder trial end this past week. A man shot at another man (5 or 6 times) hitting him twice. One of the bullets traveled through him and hit his grandmother. The grandmother died from her wounds. The grandson lived. The “perp” was charged with murder (grandmother) and attempted murder (grandson) as well as a variety of lesser charges. At the trial the defense attorney argued that his client is not guilty of murder…get this…because he had no INTENT to kill her. The jury did not convict of murder. Only attempted murder. I am beyond pissed-off. I have no doubt that the (uninformed/uneducated) jurors thought back to when Comey said that INTENT could not be proven so, ya know, no charges. WTF has this country come to? I am beyond pissed-off right now.

              • Nice post, Rick.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      From within the article comes one of the more important points which many have ignored:

      “It is also worth noting that both Vindman and Williams very early in their testimony stated the aid was withheld for the review of policy, but their perception of what happened changed over time due to news stories.”

      It goes beyond this. Remember Ambassador Sundland seemingly reversing himself between the closed door and open hearings? Remember what he said about how he came to change his view? It was based on hearing the testimony and articles by other people, leading him to realize that they felt it was pressure or a favor for the Biden investigation. Ignoring all the other parts which remained in his testimony and the phone call transcript.

      This is the same alleged method used to get the FISA warrants on Carter Page. Intell. plants stories in the Press. Then use those stories to largely justify claiming there is smoke and thus they need to look for the fire. The smoke they created leads to them getting power to do surveillance on a political campaign.

      • Interesting thing about Sondland. I read he had some hotels or some sort of business out West that the Left had called for protests and such things. He was saving his own ass, or at least trying too.

  3. Corporal?…..you called me a Corporal?? Wait, didn’t Hitler start out as a corporal? A Bohemian corporal at that?

  4. The Secretary of the Navy…..fired. Why? He went outside the chain of command.

  5. Just A Citizen says:
  6. China has a real problem on their hands.So, how to do they respond the pro democracy movement that just collected 90% of the seats in Hong Kong…….any bets?

    • By not giving a flying fuck what the people voted for..?

      • Flying, walking, swimming, crawling….jumping up and down on the bed…….

        Here is my take….the world is watching right now. And, everyone in the world knows what will happen…….very quietly, this problem will be handled….people will disappear and the vote means absolutely nothing…..I saw one young Chinese student being interviewed and he said words to the effect…” we will stand up and die for our right “……………………….and die they will.

        • Die they will…

          Short of a US occupation – and maybe not even then – they’re taking that city. Today, tomorrow, next week, or next year, they’re going to own Hong Kong. And everyone who gets in their way is going to die.

          It’s not just that China is an asshole.

          Which it very much is.

          But they’re a bully. And the cardinal sin of a bullying is to show weakness. They cannot back down, no matter the price.

          • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

            Last night I was doing the Citizenship Merit Badge with nine scouts, sixth to eighth grade. . The question of Hong Kong came up. I gave them their lead and asked the what they would do…..

            Some fascinating answers. All but one is willing to go to war for the Hongkongese (including nukes). However, NONE are willing to go to the recruiting station on their 17th Birthday and sign up to fight the war! I said, ok not enough volunteers, so we will draft you (Trynosky explains the draft) The general agreement was, “Hell No we won’t go!”

            Then we got serious and I propagandized my view that if we ain’t got a dog in this fight, we got no fight.

            Instructive.

  7. U.S.—Progressives are trying a new strategy to win over American hearts and minds after it was found that their outraged antics often turn people off: interrupting college football games.

    “We’ve tried blocking traffic, chanting during baseball games, and screaming at people in restaurants, but people still don’t love us for some reason,” said one climate protester while she was being put into a squad car. “So now, by interrupting something most Americans don’t even like and probably no one even cares about, college football, we’ll get lots of praise and positive attention from your average Joe.”
    “This is a surefire way to win the rural, red-state voters over to our cause.”
    Since the strategy proved somewhat successful during the Harvard-Yale game, the protesters say they’re going to try it on a real college football game next weekend: “We can’t wait to see how much praise we get when we interrupt the LSU-Texas A&M game this Saturday.”

  8. https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/randy-hall/2019/11/25/devin-nunes-suing-cnn-daily-beast-over-demonstrably-false-attacks

    Now this interests me. Should the media outlets be held accountable for knowingly putting out false stories about people, anyone including politicians?

    Example: HRC eats aborted babies for her daily snack. While this hasn’t been proven and might be false, should the news outlet that puts it out be held accountable for defamation?

  9. Mathius….what the hell is going on with the blue team……now they are saying that we might just censure the POTUS instead of impeach. I do not think they want a Senate trial.

  10. So, after all the circus nonsense that we have had so far, who thinks the Crat’s will actually vote for impeachment and send it to the Senate?

    As of now, I say NO. What say you, SUFA?

    • Well, Schiff has to check in with his constituents. He’s from CA. Bet the constituents say yes, but he still comes back with a No, because he knows he’s going to be called to testify. He can’t let it get to that point. Doesn’t matter. Trump has all the ammo he needs. Pass the popcorn.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      YES……. they hold a vote. Question is whether enough defect to stop the process.

      I say no…… they will vote YES to impeach.

      The only thing that could turn this is swing state (purple state) Dems getting an earful when they go home for Thanksgiving. But I suspect any attempt to persuade them to vote no will be countered with organized efforts to support a yes vote.

      In the end, I expect a narrow majority will vote YES on impeachment.

      • What if just enough R’s vote yes to just force the issue into the Senate.? Game on.

        • If they’re smart, they will. Even if a handful of Red Shirts cooperate, it’s still Blue Team’s boondoggle. The more they can stretch it out, the more victimized Trump and his base are going to feel. And the more victimized they feel, the more likely they are to turn out to vote.

          I haven’t seen any numbers, but I’d be willing to bet that Trump and the Red Team have shattered pretty much ever fundraising record in history on the back of this impeachment.

  11. Just A Citizen says:

    This bothers me over several points, especially the arrogance thinking he should remain a King Maker in the party. But, I will acknowledge something a little on the positive side. His “reported” comments (because we don’t know if it is what he actually thinks) indicated a softening of his views on some issues and a better understanding of the American Politic than when he first took office. Which means he may have “evolved” a bit after finding out people liked him but not necessarily all his grand ideas. “Fundamentally changing America” may have been one bridge to far……………. for now.

    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/obama-bernie-sanders-2020-nomination_n_5ddd31a1e4b00149f724793b

  12. Just A Citizen says:

    The linked story is quite interesting. But one thought jumped out:

    “According to a currently fashionable epistemological view, absolute truth is either nonexistent or unattainable. Therefore, truth doesn’t matter; facts don’t matter. All discourse is a manifestation of a power relationship, and all knowledge is slanted. Therefore, accuracy doesn’t matter; evidence doesn’t matter. All that matters is the attitude — the motives and purposes — of the user of knowledge, and this may simply be claimed for oneself or imputed to another. In imputing motives, the irrelevance of truth, facts, evidence, and even plausibility is a great help. The mere assertion suffices” (Islam and the West, 115). ”

    It struck me that this explains the phenomena we call Trump Lies……. the answer to Mathius’ constant questioning and consternation. It also explains Obama and Clinton and so many, many others. It explains what we often see as corruption at so many levels.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/11/understanding_the_islamwest_narrative_.html

    • That hurt my brain.

      absolute truth is either nonexistent or unattainable. Therefore, truth doesn’t matter; facts don’t matter.

      This doesn’t follow.

      Just because we can never achieve perfect / absolute truth does not mean that either (A) we can’t get pretty close with some high confidence or (B) that perfect / absolute truth doesn’t matter.

      Nor, for that matter, does it mean that we can’t identify falsehoods for what they are.

      There is no last digit of pi. Therefore Pi cannot be fully known.

      But I can know the first few numbers. And I can be pretty damned sure of them. And I can tell you that you’re wrong if you say pi is 14. And, just because I cannot fully / perfectly / absolutely know pi doesn’t mean it “doesn’t matter.”

      This whole paragraph is built on non sequiturs.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        It is “modern” thought. That is the point you goof. Not whether you agree with it. If this is in fact a “modern epistemological view” then that means it is widely held. Thus it would explain many problems, including Trump’s constant lying. Assume this view and what do you get with a NY Real Estate mogul? Truth matters only in the design and construction. Everything else is pliable and subject to manipulation for one’s own advantage.

        It is obvious the philosophical viewpoint is BS. But I bet you would find far to many people agree with it to make you comfortable.

        • I am reminded, again, of 1984….

          ::looking::

          ::looking::

          ::looking::

          Drat.. can’t find it and I’m not going to reread an entire novel just to add to a point you agree with anyway…

          The point is that he was talking about truth and how it had no meaning in his society, but the math had to be right for the rockets to fly and the bombs to explode because they didn’t care what the Ministry said. But, of course, the Ministry could then said that the rockets had flown and the bombs had exploded.. and that would be the Truth.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            The REAL QUESTION we could be concerned with is whether this idea has in fact taken hold. I am not so sure. But I do keep running into people that seem to follow it.

            And then there are those running the Govt. Seems like 99.9% of them follow this creed.

            • But I do keep running into people that seem to follow it.

              I think it’s less 1984 post-truth than it is echo-chambers and ignorance.

              I struggle, as you know, with trying to avoid echo chambers. That’s why I SUFA – to get a more rounded view. But it can be difficult and time consuming and challenging and.. uncomfortable.

              I think, in in ye olden tymes, there were fewer media options. You could read the paper – maybe you had two or three options – you could watch the tube – maybe you had three or four channels with news. You couldn’t really escape the opposing information, the more rounded view. Today, your options are virtually unlimited – tens of thousands of “channels” to select from and algorithms to spoon feed you the ones you’re most likely to want to watch… which is to say, the ones you’re most likely to agree with. And it’s sooooo easy to avoid anything that doesn’t support your world-view.

              I don’t think it’s that people don’t believe in Truth anymore, it’s that everyone thinks – based on the echo chambers they inhabit – that they have the corner on Truth and that everyone else is in denial or misinformed.

  13. It seem’s Lizzy Bordon…err…Lizzy Warren is a bit confused about what she wants. Hearing her today, she wants the Green New Deal, to save our planet. Then she says she wants Medicare for all to save our people. These two conflict so much I have no doubt Lizzy is truly a liar. Making people live like it’s the early 1800’s would make Medicare for all moot. Who the hell wants to go backwards in time because a bunch of kooks are living in a paranoid cult like state, with no real way out.

    Maybe we can convince them that aliens are making the planet warmer using their high tech weaponry because they want us all dead so they can come and take over the planet, and they need it hotter to survive. Most Liberals would fall for this if the media said it…over and over and over. 😀

  14. Can I get an AMEN!!!!!

  15. Just A Citizen says:

    Metaphor …………………. Congress, oh hell the Govt writ large.

  16. Does anyone have an opinion on firestick tv or another such item?

    • I tried Firestick… meh.

      I have an AppleTV… actually I have… counting…. four. They’re pretty great.

      Not perfect. Not the cheapest. But easy to use, works with pretty much all the major players (netflix, hulu, Apple+, Disney+, EPSN+, etc). My kids can handle the interface so you should be able to, too, if you really apply yourself.

      • Thanks Mathius. I have smart tv’s with regular cable (for father) and I have Netflix as well. Just looking into some options for streaming. Appreciate your input.

  17. A question: Suppose a President started to sell pardons.

    $1,000,000 gets you a Presidential pardon, no questions asked. Nothing covert or hidden or questionable. No cutout or intermediary. He puts it up on his website and you can purchase it with your credit card if your limit is high enough.

    The President surely have absolute and unilateral authority to pardon.

    Should this President be impeached?

    • This would fall under the emoluments clause. There is some suspicion that Bill did this at the end of the his presidency.

      • This would fall under the emoluments clause.

        I’m pretty sure it wouldn’t. The emoluments clause very specifically says “no Person holding any Office […] shall […] accept of any […] Emolument […] of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

        So, with the proviso that the funds only be accepted from US citizens, this wouldn’t apply.

        There is some suspicion that Bill did this at the end of the his presidency.

        Yes, but there is “some suspicion.” That’s why I specified that it was clear and open.

        ————

        So the question stands, should this President be impeached?

        • I don’t know what the law is but I’m sure doing so, would be against some law on the books. It’s just that, clear and open part, 😊 that gives me pause.

    • Didn’t boo boo vitch try to sell a Senate seat?

      • Yes. And I thought he went to jail for it.

        But that’s not the question. Please answer the question: should the President in my scenario be impeached?

        • You want answers? YOU WANT ANSWERS? …..

          If any government position, be it local, state, or Federal….sells pardons…not only should they be impeached but should go directly to jail and do not pass go. There is no difference between a dog catcher and POTUS on selling pardons…..none…..full stop…..execution at 6AM.

          • So…. not that I have an ulterior motive in asking this, but, just so we’re clear….

            You’re saying that you can do a function of your job, as you are explicitly authorized / empowered to do, but do so in a way which becomes illegal when it exploits that position for personal gain?

            Just for the avoidance of doubt, is that what you’re saying? I wouldn’t want to put words in your mouth.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      Wouldn’t he be promoted to POPE for doing that?? I mean, HISTORY and all………. bwahahahahahaha

      • HA! Probably!

        But the question stands: should this President be impeached?

        • NO!

          • Thanks for the direct answer. Would you be so kind as to elaborate why not?

            • I don’t think there is a law against it.

              • I don’t think there is a law against it.

                Might “selling pardons” be considered “bribery”?

                Per Wex (Cornell’s online legal dictionary) Bribery is a “corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action.”

                I guess this would hinge on the definition of “corrupt,” but I think a sound argument could made in this case, no?

                ::leafs through my copy of the Encyclopedia Britanica::

                Ah.. “Corruption in the legal context refers to a wrongful design to acquire or cause some pecuniary or other advantage. Corruption may encompass a variety of wrongful acts, such as, among others, bribes, kickbacks, jury tampering, and abuse of public office.”

                ——

                So, Mr. Gman, given the above, would you care to revise your answer as regards this purely hypothetical pardon-selling President?

              • If someone offered a million to Trump and he accepted, then that could be bribery undet the law. But if he offers a pardon for a million, that is not even close to bribery, but it is pay for play. Pay for play doesnt seem to be an issue in DC, as we have all witnessed.

                But, no, your hypotheyical is NOT bribery.

              • If someone offered a million to Trump

                I don’t think I mentioned Trump once in this scenario. Who is talking about Trump? Not me. Maybe I’m just trying to figure out what I can get away with once I’m President.

                But if he offers a pardon for a million, that is not even close to bribery

                How so? The definition clearly states that a corrupt solicitation of a thing of value in exchange official action.”

                Would it not be bribery for a police officer to let you out of a ticket because he, rather than you, made the offer to accept money? In fact, reading the above, it says “solicitation OR acceptance,” so just the offer (solicitation) to take your money in exchange for letting you out of the ticket should be enough, no?

    • No. It’s on the website. Pardons for sale. Impeachments should be reserved for covert actions.

      • Impeachments should be reserved for covert actions.

        I’m not sure where you got that impression.

        So, if the President goes out and the Senate Majority Leader for failing to pass his preferred bill, that’s not impeachable because it’s not covert?

        I mean, sure, that’s a particularly egregious example, but would’t it belie the idea that an action needs to be covert in order to be impeachable?

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      YES, he/she should be impeached. IF……… that money is going to his/her personal use.

      But what if it is going to the Treasury???

      Then I would say NO. But then also, such a thing would be quickly overturned in the Courts as no law was established to do it, and I doubt the EO authority would cover it.

      • A fair and valid point of clarification.

        I would argue that, were the money for the Treasury, that it would not be a “corrupt” act, and so would not qualify. Whereas, were the money for his own benefit, that would be a “corrupt” act and would qualify.

        Agree?

        • Corrupt being the key word. What about charity for the victims of crime?

          • That would not seem to be corrupt by the definitions I posted.

            I’m sure we can come up with lots of niche examples where he’s doing something good or acceptable with the money so-raised. The question – as asked – assumes he’s pocketing the money and using it to fund his campaign and pay off a gambling debt.

            • I would say that its not right. But its not really bribery either, as i see it. It would be pay for play. If illegal, then impeachment may be the way to go.

              • But its not really bribery either, as i see it.

                What part of the definition of “bribery” which I posted would this scenario fail to meet?

              • I see it as selling his authority for personal benefit. Basically he is selling a service. If no one bites…meh.

              • Basically he is selling a service. If no one bites…meh.

                ….

                Even though the definition specifically says “solicitation” or acceptance..?

                So if you get pulled over and the cops says “give me $50 to let you off the hook” and you say no, then.. “meh”? No harm no foul? If you offer him the $50 and he says no, do you end up in jail?

          • Obama solicited huge funds (fines?) from BP and other corporations. These funds were in lieu of prosecution for breaking environmental laws and causing damage to individuals. The funds went to a private account and were doled out by an Obama appointed administrator. They did not got to the Treasure were fines normally go. Hence these were bribes for which Obama could claim political advantage and not court ordered fines in the normal sense. AG Sessions stopped the practice.

            • I don’t recall asking a single thing about Obama. If you would like to discuss Obama’s (alleged) misdeeds, we can have that conversation in another thread.

              The question is in regards to a hypothetical President openly / blatantly settling Pardons for self-interest.

              • Strike Obama’s name. Strike any corporate name. It is essentially the same thing. It is selling, in this case, freedom from criminal and civil prosecution for a donation to a private fund administered by a politically appointed tsar. The selling office holder did not financially benefit personally but did benefit politically.

              • … So that’s a vote for impeachment?

        • Just A Citizen says:

          YES, I would agree.

          I do wonder though what affect soliciting such “donations” in “exchange” for pardons in the wide open would have on a Bribery charge. Since bribery has and remains traditionally a secret act, because it is considered illegal/unethical.

          It might be this is more a gross abuse of power or acting against law, by advertising the sale of something for personal gain which is not the President’s property/service which can be sold. POTUS is acting as executive on behalf of the nation. The Pardon power is one granted in that capacity. Thus if it is not for sale by the Law of Government then he has no power to sell it. Sorry, my mind is wandering into the little dark places created by legal theories and obfuscation.

          GUILTY………. abuse of power at least, bribery at the worst. Either case…..impeachment is the order of the day.

          • In all likelihood this would be done at the end of a presidential term. Hence impeachment would take too long. However, the x-president would be open to prosecution for any crimes. I suspect there are laws against this kind or pay to play government activity.

    • Dale A Albrecht says:

      Like Clinton did just before he left office for a cool $500000

  18. Just A Citizen says:

    So let me get this straight. If I video Lil JAC killing the mice in our barn with the shovel (standard practice, along with your foot if you can get close) I will be committing a FELONY.

    Well there goes my run for POTUS………………… dang nab it.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Thanks Congress, Thanks Mr. Trump………… don’t know what the States could do without you. Oh wait………….YES I DO.

      https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/11/26/trump-signs-bill-making-animal-cruelty-a-felony-banning-horrible-animal-crushing-torture/

    • I… I’d have to read the legislation, but at a glance, it would seem so.

      Wait… no.. a bit more digging: “The Act clarifies that it does not apply to normal veterinary practice, the slaughter of animals for food, hunting or sporting activity, predator or pest control, medical or scientific research, acts necessary to protect life or property, and more.” Per Jurist.org

      So… no, Lil JAC is safe.

      But, err… this pretty much carves open a loophole big enough to drive a truck through, so…. ….. what’s the purpose of this law again?

      THAT SAID, I’ve crushed plenty of critters that needed crushing. But I’ve never done it out of any kind of enjoyment. BLECH! If it’s not too inconvenient, and they are destructive or dangerous, I’ll generally throw bugs and spiders out of the house rather than killing them. What the hell is wrong with people? Harming animals for fun is the sign of a deranged mind.

      THAT SAID, I suspect this could run afoul of 1st and 10th Amendment protections.

      THAT SAID, I guess I generally appreciate any efforts to end animal cruelty, but wish they’d put a bit more thought into it.

      THAT SAID, just a reminder that Red Team are statist, too.

      • Hmmm, is that a loop hole of a safety valve?

        • I don’t know what to call it, but it pretty much obviates the entire force of the law.

          “Oh that video of me killing puppies? That was a science experiment to see how hard I need to press to crush them. See? I took notes!”

          And that’s even assuming it doesn’t get immediately thrown out by the first court of competent jurisdiction which considers it in light of the 1st and 10th Amendments…. which Justice Mathius would sure do.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Thank you for looking up the details. I can tell Lil JAC he can come out from under the bed now. The Govt. Boogey Men are not going to get him after all. Or me……………..

  19. A nice puppy story from yesterday. It was a nice sunny day and Sixer was out doing her 7 month old thing. She caught herself a mouse. For the next hour or so, she would walk around the yard, mouse in mouth, head held hi all proud of her catch. She eventually put it in a hole she dug and that was that. I wish I would have gotten a video.

  20. U.S.—In honor of Thanksgiving week, the nation’s progressives have begun to give thanks that they have so much to be angry and offended about this year.

    “Thank you, unspecified deity who may or may not exist, for giving us so much stuff to be outraged about,” said Staci Walder, 42, of Portland, as she prepared her vegan, kale-wrapped turkey. “I’m truly humbled that you’ve blessed me with the Trump presidency, the patriarchy, the laws of economics, and biological facts to rage against.”
    “Every year, it’s important to pause and recognize how much we have to be angry about.”
    “A lot of people struggle with gratitude, but I’m deeply thankful that the universe has given us a veritable cornucopia of things to be mad about,” agreed Mary Wallace, 27, of New York. “I know that I come from a place of privilege, and when I think about those poor people who have absolutely nothing to be mad about, I utter a prayer of thanks to goddess.”
    Many progressives partake in an annual tradition of writing down all the things they’re thankful to be mad about:
    White people
    Pronouns
    Personal responsibility
    Satire that does not affirm their viewpoint
    Billionaires
    Old tweets
    32-ounce sodas
    Plastic straws
    People who hold a steady job
    Appropriating other cultures
    Excluding other cultures
    Bush
    Obama
    Trump
    Babies
    Kanye West
    America
    “If we’d all just remember to count our outrages, we’d have a much worse attitude all the time,” Wallace said as she looked over her own list of offensive things that dare to exist. “We should live our lives as though it’s Outrage Thanksgiving every day.”

    • Canine Weapon says:

      (3rd attempt.. because Gman is a fascist)

      • I wondered for awhile if just ignoring the kneelers was the right way to go. I came to the conclusion, it would have been a mistake. Things would have just escalated to the truly absurd.

        • Do you think that this exact reasoning may apply to any of the things the left gets worked up about?

    • I certainly get that trans people in sports creates some complications.

      And I get that this can be confusing and even harmful to those involved. And I get that it can mean “unfair” competition.

      And I get that this sucks.

      The world is not perfect.

      But it certainly seems to me that the obsession of the right on the consequences for sports is deliberately calibrated to pain the question of “trans” in the worst light. It’s calibrated to make non-trans the victims, whereas trans folks are the victims of hate and discrimination in almost every other case.

      For 99% of trans people, who themselves are a tiny minority of the population, sports are not an issue. They want to be recognized as their preferred gender, they want to be treated with human dignity, they want equal rights and equal protections, they don’t want to be discriminated against. But, instead of considering that, the right focuses extensively on how unfair it is for a handful of athletes who have to compete against trans people.

      It sure seems like the right would rather play the victim than face the fact that they are being unkind to a marginalized and vulnerable demographic.

      • I find I can’t resist. Do you think that I, V.H., would intentionally want to be “unkind to a marginalized and vulnerable demographic”? 😁

        First up it isn’t the only argument. But it is a very clear one, that shows the downside of accepting a lie as truth. There is a difference between accepting people as they choose to be and accepting them as 100% something they are not. You say you get it, but I’m not sure you do. I think you simply dismiss it, as unimportant. I on the other hand think it matters a lot. I actually think my way is best for those who believe they are in the wrong body because it would be actually accepting them for who they really are, not some promoted lie based on sympathy and I suspect pity.

        • Just A Citizen says:

          My hat is off and sweeping a great flourish to V.H. as I bow as deeply as I can.

          Well said My Lady.

        • the downside of accepting a lie as truth

          I think, perhaps, you have conflated “biological sex” and “gender.”

          The thinking on this is.. tough.. and nuanced… and a bit “modern” to my way of thinking… but they aren’t the same thing. At least, not as considered when pertaining to trans folks.

          The idea is that sex is biologically determined and cannot be changed. It is simply hard empirical fact. You were born female, you’ll die female, your chromosomes are XX, you check the box for female on medical forms. Full stop.

          Gender, on the other hand, is “who” you are in terms of society and societal “molds.” “Females” have long hear, wear dresses, like “girly things,” have boobs, higher voices, etc. Whatever status roles, gender rolls, expectations, and chivalry may apply, applies on the GENDER level.

          The question of athleticism adheres to the role of sex-based-identity. Women are smaller, weaker, have smaller hearts and lungs, smaller hands, less muscle, and worse hand-eye coordination… on average. And, for this reason, athleticism is (generally) best tied to biological sex, but it can be complicated in the question of people who have medically transitioned.

          The question of virtually everything else would fall to gender-based-identity. And here is where it’s just none of my damned business or concern what another person wants to be. If my 2nd (3rd?) cousin wants to wear dresses, change her name, go by “her,” and grow boobs, that’s her business. It costs me nothing to accept her as such. But to refuse to accept her is.. unkind.

          When people and governments go out of their way to enforce sex-based-identity where it need not apply is just… cruel.

          Why does it matter so damned much that a person who thinks of themselves as female, who wears a dress, who has long hair, who has a female name who wears a purse, who looks female, who, who, who… that this person wants to take a shit in the women’s bathroom? Why do we have to go so out of our way to be concerned with this kind of thing, and force them to use a bathroom with men? Why? Does it actually matter what her anatomy and chromosomes are? She’s going to use a stall, no? It’s not like she’s going to go in the sink. Does it affect anyone else if she has a penis or XY chromosomes? No. But “conservatives” and their representatives want to go out of their way to make these people’s lives worse… and THAT is the kind of thing I’m talking about.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Biological Sex and Gender were the SAME THING, until the Progressive wing nuts came along. You know, back when words had meaning that everyone understood.

            • Biological Sex and Gender were the SAME THING

              Words and meanings are in a constant state of flux.

              They have a NEW meaning. Lots of words used to mean one thing when you were little and now mean something different.

              I’d imagine you’re old enough to remember when “gay” just meant “happy.”

              The times, they are a-changin’!

              Now… given MY druthers, were I the czar of trans-rights, I’d have created a new word out of whole-cloth to mean “gender identity” rather than trying to split the two (sex and gender) into separate meanings. But I’m not in charge of such things, and the trans community foolishly didn’t think to consult me.

              Biological Sex and Gender were the SAME THING

              CLOSE.

              The WORDS were the same thing, which is to say interchangeable, but the concepts were not. The later simply lacked a title, but there were always those for whom their biological sex did not fit the “who” of “who they are.”

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Your typical rationalizations. Words do change meaning, but those changes usually occur over a longer period of time. Not because some activist or lawyer creates a new meaning out of thin air.

                You in effect admit that the Trans community, a vast MINORITY, have changed the meaning of these specific words, and because you sympathize with their grievances/needs/wants you become a willing player.

                They certainly do have IDENTITY issues. The reason is irrelevant to me. But what does matter is that their POLITICAL wants are allowed to upset Science and the meaning of our language.

                Gender = Sex, there was no difference because of lacking Adjectives. WHO you think you are is in your mind. Your sex/gender is a biological reality. You can wrap a dog up in sheep skin and teach it to bleet. But it is still a dog.

              • Words do change meaning, but those changes usually occur over a longer period of time. Not because some activist or lawyer creates a new meaning out of thin air.

                Nonsense!

                Words change as rapidly as the environment suits them.

                The word “surf” for instance came to mean only browsing almost overnight. Other words take longer.

                Sometimes the change is organic. Sometimes it is driven by activists or interested parties.

                No one holds the corner on truth with regards to what a word does and does not mean, nor when and how it may change. It is merely a question of shared understanding.

                When and if it becomes a shared understanding such that usage conveys / can convey / generally conveys a meaning, then that it is the meaning.

                How and why are wholly irrelevant.

                You in effect admit that the Trans community, a vast MINORITY, have changed the meaning of these specific words,

                Yes.

                Well…. sort of…

                and because you sympathize with their grievances/needs/wants you become a willing player.

                I neither agree nor disagree. It simply is.

                THEY use it to mean this thing. I understand what they mean.

                Therefore their usage of the term conveys a meaning which I understand.

                This is the nature of communication.

                If they use a word to mean a thing, and I understand what they mean by their usage, then the word means the concept which we both understand it to mean.

                Now, maybe it’s a secondary or tertiary meaning, an “obscure” or “arcane” meaning, or a niche or technical meaning. But it IS a meaning.

                And whether you like it or not, and whether I like it or not, matters not one whit. Language does not function like that. Neither of us are the King of English.

              • But what does matter is that their POLITICAL wants are allowed to upset Science

                I don’t believe any science is upset by their action(s).

                PROVIDED you accept their terms concepts and distinguish between biological sex and gender-identification the concept they call “gender,” then there is no issue.

                They aren’t saying – literally – that a man may become a woman or vise versa. They are saying that a person may change WHO they are in societal terms and opt into a gender-role to which they were not born.

                They are saying a biological male may wear a dress, go by “Sally,” shit in the women’s room, and watch Gossip Girl. And they are asking that they not be harassed or discriminated against for so doing.

              • and the meaning of our language.

                You can argue until you’re blue in the face. But you don’t get to decide what words mean.

                It’s a battle of shared understanding and, if they can get people to understand their meaning, then that is that.

                Besides.. why the hell are you so invested in a static meaning of a given word? What’s it to you? Lots of words have changed over time – what is the term for a bundle of stick, I wonder – why do you have to hold on so tightly to this definition when it’s no skin off your back?

                Do you not understand what THEY mean when they use the term “gender” as distinct from “sex”?

                Are you hurt if they appropriate the term “gender” for their meaning? Does this affect you in ANY way?

                Obviously, you and I would prefer that they’d created their own term and not try to change the meaning of this one, but why do you care so much? Why does anyone?

              • Gender = Sex,

                Does it?

                Does it have to?

                I think sex means intercourse.

                Does gender still equal sex?

                No? That’s not what you MEANT, is it?

                What you meant was the meaning of sex which is defined as biological gender, right? That is, XX or XY, right?

                When you communicate, the listener much interpret your meanings. When you say “gender = sex,” it is my job as the listener to consider the context of what you’re saying, holistically so as to include who the speaker is and any other nuances which may provide clues to your meaning, and then it is my job to select from the meanings of your words the one(s) which best apply in order to convert your mouth-sounds to concepts.

                You say: gender = sex and I see a bunch of letters and a symbol. My brain takes that apart and puts it back together. Does he mean gender in the sense of “biological sex” or “social-identity”.. hmm… brain says the former. Ok, “=”.. that probably means “equals” or “is the same as” … then “sex”… does he mean intercourse of “biological gender”? Probably the later… ok… got it… and then it hands that back to my conscious mind without missing a beat.

                THAT is what language is.

                So a tiny minority with an agenda have added another definition to the term “gender”… ::shrug::

                When THEY say gender, when I speak about “gender” in terms of trans people, your brain has the task of taking apart my sentence and putting it back together with the meanings of the words as close to my intention as you can. You are deliberately ignoring my meaning in order to substitute a rigid definition of a specific term which is different from what I intended – and which you KNOW is different than what I intended – and then balking because my sentence is not true.

                I say “Gender does NOT equal Sex.”

                You take my words apart, you KNOW what I mean by “gender.” We’ve talked enough, you’re smart enough, you can read the context. You KNOW what I meant and what I understand the term to mean as I used it here. You KNOW that I mean the concept of gender within society (clothes, names, hair, boobs, etc). And you KNOW that sex (biological identity) does not equal the concept of “gender” as I used it. So you KNOW that my sentence is true. But you deliberately substituted YOUR rigid definition of the word “gender” (biological sex) for my intended and understood meaning. And then reached the conclusion that I was wrong and, therefore, a lie, and a defiance of science and empirical reality.

                But only because you CHOSE to interpret words in a way you KNOW they weren’t intended.

                Why are you the czar of picking and choosing what words mean, when, and to whom?

              • WHO you think you are is in your mind.

                Yes…. but not ONLY……

                because it is manifest by society.

                Men and women are treated differently. They are expected to act differently. They are thought of differently. They have different “roles.” Etc. Right? I know “egalitarianism” and “chivalry is dead” and all that, but at the end of the day, we all know that men and women aren’t treated exactly the same in all regards, don’t we?

                I want to be who I am. If I, in my mind, am a woman (gender, not sex), then that’s the gender-role / identity I am assuming. This, unlike biological sex, is not a fixed concept. And for you to push back and insist that I stay in the mold which matches the one YOU think I should be in is unreasonable.

                If I want to wear a dress and go by “Sally,” then that’s MY CHOICE, not yours.

                Your sex/gender is a biological reality.

                Only because you are aggressively and deliberately refusing to understand the concept meant by “gender” when THEY are using it.

                JAC: Mathius is a dork.
                Mathius: I AM NOT!!!
                J: You totally are. Look at what you wrote about language theory.
                M: A dork is an arcane term for a whale’s penis, which I am not.
                J: That’s not what I meant!
                M: I don’t care what you meant, I insist on interpreting your words with my definitions such that you are wrong.
                J: That’s the dorkiest thing I’ve ever heard!

                You’re using YOUR definitions, rejecting THEIR definitions, and then using your interpretations to show that their CONCEPTS are wrong.

                Replace the word “gender” (their definition) with “blargon.” There, a brand new term. Are you happy? It’s NEW word. It means the interpersonal aspects generally associated with being a given gender but not necessarily bound to that gender.

                So a person can have a female sex and male blargon. And they can change from male blargon to female or back.

                And if they are female blargon, then they should be treated the way you treat WOMEN (sex-female), which is to say they can shit in the lady’s room, wear dresses without been hassled, and generally just go about living their lives “as women.” And you would refer to her as “her.”
                (and conversely for male blargon).

                You can wrap a dog up in sheep skin and teach it to bleet. But it is still a dog.

                In this scenario, it would BIOLOGICALLY be a dog, but BEHAVIORALLY and/or SOCIALLY be a sheep.

                Sex is the biological component. That other stuff.. how it’s perceived, how it’s treated, how it acts… that’s the “gender” or “blargon” component in this scenario. That’s the “WHO” of “who it is.”

                If my dog ACTS like a sheep, biologically it still needs meat, it still needs dog medicine, it still needs exercise, it still won’t grow wool, etc. But in terms of how I interact with it, how society interacts with, how we treat it, what we call it, etc, it’s a sheep.

                That is, it’s “WHO” is sheep, it’s “WHAT” is dog.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Maybe, just maybe our infatuation is that STUPID things done for the purpose of making people feel good can have really BAD consequences. That pushing PC garbage polices from the top can get people harmed.

  21. All,

    As the definition of bribery specifies the ““corrupt solicitation, acceptance, or transfer of value in exchange for official action,” which, if any, of the following would you consider to be “bribery” and, if so, by which party (or both):

    (A) You are pulled over for speeding. You offer the officer $50 to let you off with a warning.

    (B) You are pulled over for speeding. The officer offers to let you off with a warning in exchange for $50.

    (C) You are pulled over for speeding. You offer the officer $50 to let you off with a warning. He declines. You receive a ticket.

    (D) You are pulled over for speeding. You offer the officer $50 to let you off with a warning. He accepts. You pay and he gives you a warning.

    (E) You are pulled over for speeding. The officer offers to let you off with a warning in exchange for $50. You decline. You receive a ticket.

    (F) You are pulled over for speeding. The officer offers to let you off with a warning in exchange for $50. You accept. You pay and he gives you a warning.

    (G) You are pulled over for speeding. The officer offers to let you off with a warning in exchange for $50. You accept. He keeps your money and writes you a ticket anyway.

    (H) You are pulled over for speeding. You offer the officer $50 in exchange for a warning. He accepts. (Somehow) He gives you a warning but you don’t pay.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      All of these fall under Bribery Law. They are either Bribes, Attempts to Bribe, or Solicitation of Bribes.

      I know of no instance where breaking the implied contract of the bribe arrangement can be prosecuted as breach of contract. As a bribe I think the contract agreement is Null and Void, poisoned fruit or something like that.

      Now lets make it more appropriate for your motive. If you are pulled over and the cop says, “If you pay a standard fee of $20 I will write you a warning instead of a speeding ticket”. You accept and pay the $20. He writes you a warning.

      Is this a bribe??? If not then why not?

  22. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    “Only because you are aggressively and deliberately refusing to understand the concept meant by “gender” when THEY are using it.”

    This is what you seem to NOT UNDERSTAND. I understand “their concept”. I REJECT it as FALSE.

    If I do not get to decide what words mean then why do they????????

    Only if it becomes an accepted definition does it change the meaning. But notice how often the Progressive demand for change is antithetical to the original meaning. Rendering the word as nonsense.

  23. Just A Citizen says:

    Sorry to leave you hangin but I have to take off for the week. Back Sunday, late. Off to have Turkey with family.

    Happy Thanksgiving and Best Wishes to EVERYONE at SUFA.

  24. Even though the definition specifically says “solicitation” or acceptance..?
    So if you get pulled over and the cops says “give me $50 to let you off the hook” and you say no, then.. “meh”? No harm no foul? If you offer him the $50 and he says no, do you end up in jail?

    You are comparing apples and oranges. Bribery is between two parties, usually unknown to the world. You scenario is that the act is advertised. He is not soliciting from a specific individual, he is selling his power, which is still wrong and likely killed by the courts before anything actually happens.

    Now, change your scenario to ….Prez offers El Chapo a pardon for 10 million in cash, delivered under the table and unknown to anyone and you have your bribery.

    Why all the poo poo about this? SUFA wants to know 😛

  25. Happy Thanksgiving!

  26. Happy Thanksgiving SUFA!!!!!

  27. Stephen K. Trynosky says:

    And a Happy Thanksgiving to all! Remember, Leave the Politics at the door today!

  28. Happy Thanksgiving, SUFA!

  29. Testing

  30. What a brilliant misdirection move the POTUS did……absolutely brilliant.

    They paint a plane the exact replica of Air Force 1. Fly it to Mira Lagos…sends the security details there…..reporters follow the plane to Mira Lagos and start writing about how the POTUS is laying back in his enclave and playing golf over Thanksgiving…..trying to make him look like he does not care………………

    Then…………….

    The POTUS appears in Afghanistan on Thanksgiving Day…..not only does Newsweek and the New York Times and the LA Times look stupid by printing a false narrative….they are now mad that the White House did not notify the media of his trip.

    Gotta love it.

  31. Now, THAT is funny.

  32. Interesting statistic while watching some foot ball today…. on the NFL channel. They were talking about referee’s and penalty calling this year in both college and professional football. This was on the heels of the “raising the leg” penalty in college ball this past weekend. For the year 2019, thus far, there have been 31 game misconduct penalties in college ball and 14 game misconduct in professional ball. ( Game misconduct is other than targeting hits ). It was noted that excessive celebration and rude gestures were specifically mentioned. Anything from “humping” a goal post to grabbing crotches to waving bye bye on long runs to raising one’s leg dog style to indicate peeing in the end zone.

    The statistic…….every single penalty…100% of them…were done by black personnel.

    There were several arguments put forward.
    1) Cultural
    2) 85% of professional football is black therefore, the majority of the penalties are against black players.
    3) the referee’s are prejudiced against blacks even though 46% of the refs are black.
    4) coincidence….

    You be the judge.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      One cannot complain or point out inappropriate behavior for a member of a “protected” class! The Balkanization of America at its best.

      Do NOT know if you sir caught the pro motion to Brigadier General going ahead of a female Air Force Colonel of the lesbian persuasion going ahead despite her falsifying flying hours to get flight pay and actually stealing those hours from a subordinate.

      • Yes sir….saw that. Again, I have no words. Used to be, in the REAL military…theft of any kind got you booted out….stealing flight hours to qualify for promotion is…….well, it used to be something bad but I guess not anymore…and being lesbian is the only way she made it. It is a statement and it is bullshit but……..my military days are greatly numbered and it ain’t like it was. Too many snowflakes around…..crap, you can’t even give pushups for “lanyards”**** any longer…..

        ****Old time military saying….Colonel points for those who get it.

        • Colonel,

          Without being a military type, I would ask you this question: during “peacetime” (or whatever passes for peacetime these days), this kind of PC statement-making thing happens and… whatever… but if we got ourselves into a major shooting war (WWI / WWII / cold-war-turn-hot / we need to put China in their place), would you imaging that this kind of thing gets thrown out the window in 30 seconds flat to be replaced with your version of the “old days”?

          Put another way: is this the “permanent” new norm or just a transient luxury of being in an unassailable hegemonic position?

          • Very nicely put…..transient luxury.

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              In BOTH world wars, the national Guard divisions from the states went into federal service with their commanding generals from the days of peace. In one very quick hurry, 90 plus percent were replaced with “real” generals./ There were exceptions ones who should not have stayed byt did and ones who should have been kept but were not. I hope and pray, in a full blown shooting war, this crap will end.

              Now, having said that, if Viet-nam were occurring now, with the “GUNS and BUTTER” way it was handled then, I think that the PC police would still rule the day!

    • Well, #2 (hehehehe) seems like a likely explanation for the bulk of it.

      Ceterus paribus, if 85% of the players are black, 85% of the offenses should be committed by black players. And 45 penalties is not a huge sample set, anyway.

      You could probably winnow that down a bit further as the celebrations are not generally done by, say, the QB or linemen, but by the tight ends (hehehehe) and full/half backs. For example, since a quick googling suggests that 87% of QB’s are white, I’d wager that the percentage of black people in these scoring positions is even more-black.

      THAT SAID, there could be a bias against black players by white refs. It could just be cultural. Who knows? Not me. But the overall effect is pretty minor once you factor in demographics. (kind of like how the “wage gap” virtually (but not completely) disappears once you control for certain obvious factors).

      Here’s a better question for you: WHY are 85% of NFL players black?

      • Better yet…..you can answer your own question by asking why are 87% of the quarterbacks white? It is the same reason.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Point of order: “And 45 penalties is not a huge sample set, anyway.” As I understand it this is not a “sample set”. It is THE POPULATION.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        Because most white kids don’t need football to escape poverty. Then there are the biological realities…… Black’s on average have longer upper leg muscles and larger glut maximus. Creating more speed and explosiveness from a starting position. White’s on average have larger chests………. making them faster swimmers.

    • Colonel, is this allowed in Texas? Please say no.

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Those are Cowboy Sandals………Real Cowboys can wear whatever the hell they want. At least in a Free State. So come to think of it, I guess your question remains …………….. can they be worn in Texas? bwahahahahahahaha

        • Well, sir…you may be correct in one thing….real cowboys can wear anything but……errr….ummmm…………………………I will see what happens at the Rodeo next month. I always go…love to watch calf roping, steer wrestling, and team roping….not too big on the bull riding but root for the bulls….I do like bareback and saddle bronc riding….and I do like the barrel racing…my daughter used to do that.

          My thing, years ago, was cutting competition….I never won anything but it was fun to compete in it.

          All this to say….the Rodeo is next month…and I will peruse the booths…I would be VERY surprised to see anything like this….but….stranger things have happened.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Colonel

            I do love the artistry and skill of Saddle Bronc and roping events. Once saw a Team Roping event where the time was just off the world record. And it was in a small town rodeo in Dillon, Mt.

            As for the “Cowboy Sandals”, not likely to see them around here either. Interesting thing, my Cousin sent me this photo in my email a month or so back. Claimed they were his new sandals. There was no headline about California. The floor in the photo looks like my Cousin’s so I now wonder if he started a new trend.

      • Let me put it to you this way…..when I see a pair in Texas…..read the headlines. Mathius is correct….it IS a capital offense….If I see this actually walking down the street or at the upcoming rodeo…

        I just have no words……just no words……this looks like a fashion statement from a wannabe western state like California. I think even Idaho would shoot on sight. This would be a hanging offense down here….stetsons made outta straw or putting ketchup on anything.

      • Damn, Anita……that is a sight that will be with me all day…..did NOT need THAT visual. Hell, that would be like drinking Perrier in Idaho.

        • I KNOW!!! I was all ready to claim Mathius was messing with us with his Imgur pics again, but I see he has put the hex on them too.

    • That should be a capital offense.

  33. Just A Citizen says:

    Well for a few decades now I have heard over and over again how the information and service economy was our future. It would take us to the next level economically. I was a skeptic as were many others. We were called flat earthers for our effort. Now we are told there is a problem in the employment data. For all those left wing greenies in my past…. I TOLD YOU SO>>>>>>>>>>>>

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/american-jobs-are-getting-worse-according-to-a-new-economic-measure/

  34. Just A Citizen says:

    This would be funny if not so sad. Now, if the predicted changes happen……….. as predicted…. then Climate Chaos is the most accurate of terms created so far. Even more accurate that Climate Change. Because the latter does not indicate how the change will occur. It would be in all directions with frequencies and amplitudes altered significantly. Thus Chaos would be more “accurate”.

    Of course the real message here is that a “messaging effort” is required to wake people up. Tells me something is wrong with the underlying message, not the catch phrase.

    https://www.redstate.com/brandon_morse/2019/12/02/climate-alarmists-want-rebrand-climate-change-something-panic-inducing/

  35. Just A Citizen says:

    OMG………..the irony of a City Dweller finally revealing his true values. The irony? It has been the City Dwellers that over the years have pushed most strongly for PRESERVING the open lands of the West, and other places, for the purpose of providing them a “place of solitude.” A place to recreate and appreciate the openness of nature. To calm themselves from the frenetic “city life”. Yet those of us who choose to live here have made “bad life choices”. Nothing like being judged by an Ass-Hat to start of the week on the left foot.

    https://pjmedia.com/trending/rural-americans-are-bad-people-who-deserve-to-be-shamed-says-berkeley-instructor/

    • The guy looks like Mathius 😛 Obviously it’s not Mathius, Mathius isn’t a sniveling snowflake with that high level of stupid. 😀

  36. Just A Citizen says:

    Especially for Mathius. Someone disagrees with you about who Trump is at the core.

    Meanwhile, the Republican Party and conservatives must follow the example set by President Trump in order to permanently relegate the American Left to the ash heap of history. Donald Trump uniquely can relate to and communicate with those in flyover country or the urban centers regardless of ethnicity, education or income. He is able to do this because he is incapable of being anyone other than himself, and he truly has an affection for this nation and its people. African Americans, Hispanics and blue-collar whites, who for so long have been either denigrated, mocked or patronized, instinctively know sincerity when they see it and are tired of being pawns in the quest for unfettered power and ego-gratification by the Left and the liberal elites.

    Read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/12/the_inevitable_breakup_of_the_american_left.html#ixzz66yqk4c2H

  37. Just A Citizen says:

    Colonel

    Remember when you asked if there were any real Journalists left? And I said yes there were, and this lady is one of them.

    https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/12/sharyl_attkisson_compiles_list_of_101_notable_media_mistakes_on_trump.html

  38. Just A Citizen says:

    Here, here!

    That George Mason commentary offers an answer:

    So-called sin taxes, even those passed with the best of intentions, have undesirable consequences because they contradict basic principles of economics, finance and, most importantly, free choice. … [T]axing sin usually does not end up significantly altering the “sinful” behavior but rather rewards the very private organizations or politicians who have lobbied for the tax. … Sin tax activists strongly believe that most citizens are inherently incapable of making consumption decisions for themselves. … Once it becomes “legitimate for government to protect individuals from their own follies,” there is no way to establish limits to governmental powers.

    For the whole article: https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/12/vermonts_fire__brimstone_carbon_tax.html

  39. Just A Citizen says:

    My predictions for December, 2019.

    The Bills will become the #1 team in the AFC East or whatever that conference is.

    The Ravens will become the overall #1 Seed.

    The Seahawks finish second to the 49ers in the NFC west, but get the wildcard. Dallas wins their division with a 500 season.

    The IG Report on the Trump/Russia investigations is pretty much a nothing burger. A few tidbits of bad decisions but pretty much whitewashing and protecting the establishment.

    The House Judiciary issues articles of Impeachment, focusing primarily on Obstruction of Justice. They might add some stuff over Ukraine but that will only be to keep Schiff’s following happy. The moderate Dems will want this over soon. By moving to the Senate they get it over and can then blame the R’s for letting POTUS off the hook, while claiming ” I didn’t support this mess”.

    The Senate schedules the trial for early 2020, where they find Not Guilty. Handing Dems a narrative of Republicans breaking the law once again in time for the 2020 campaign season.

    The House does not pass the NAFTA replacement before year end. The Administration does not get final tweaks done either.

    Final Four in the College playoff: Ohio State, LSU, Clemson and BAYLOR. Utah beats Oregon but gets no respect from the computer and wind up ranked 5th.

    Cincinnati beats Memphis, Boise St. beats Hawaii, and the Broncos go to the Cotton Bowl. Which kicks up their Texas connection even further.

    • Haven’t watched one minute of NFL so far. All I know is the heat is on Patricia and Stafford. Stafford because he just can’t make the Lions win.

      I dont know about this impeachment business. I know that Trump is mighty pissed about it, and his threat all along has been ” so that it will never happen to another president again”. And they brought his family into it too. Don Jr, even Barron. That’s fighting words there, so I bet Trump is all in for a Senate trial, just so he can cross examine and more truth will come out.

      I don’t know the NAFTA schedule, but its a win/win for Trump. Either vote to approve or we go back to pre NAFTA, which is fine with him too. But that sure is some BS…Pelosi holding it up purposefully. Makes long term planning next to impossible.

      Big Ten for the championship!

  40. Just A Citizen says:

    CNN wonders why some of us continue to laugh at them.

    “Another story on the site showed the group in hunting garb, many of them holding rifles, with their haul of game birds.”

    I assure you the “another story site” did not show them with rifles next to the stack of dead pheasants they had killed this past weekend.

    Sad day on the east side of the State today.

  41. Just A Citizen says:

    This is actually pretty cool. How to take dozens of independent data sets, each with no clear conclusion and sometimes incomplete, combine them and get a conclusion that changes the accepted narrative. Real sleuth work. Something that seems missing from much of the Historical works I read these days.

    https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/02/world/plague-roman-empire-scn/index.html

  42. Just A Citizen says:

    Memo To: POTUS Donald J. Trump

    Dear Sir,

    Please, for the love of God, keep your fingers away from the key board and shut your damn mouth about things you have no expertise. You just make yourself look 1) Stupid/Ignorant, 2) Dictator Light and 3) Stupid/Ignorant.

    Yours in KAGA
    JAC

  43. Just A Citizen says:

    Been suffering through one Bloomberg political ad after another this evening.

    Boy, I did not know the guy was the SAVIOR of NY, and all the other States where his efforts have had such wonderful impact on everyone. Another Messiah running as a Democrat.

    I really was surprised to find out he was so powerful, affective, insightful, powerful, etc. etc. Otherwise how could he have “raised NY from the ashes of 911, created over 400,000 jobs in NY, provided health care and liberal leave/wages for over 20,000 employees. Jobs for the middle class are coming…….. just elect “Little Mikey” and all will be better. More jobs, better pay, better benefits, healthcare we can afford and we can have our doctor if we want, climate change will finally be corralled, and the rich will finally pay their fair share.

    Good grief SK and Mathius. You guys must be living in UTOPIA given all this guy has accomplished.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      Michael Bloomberg’s claim to fame is in NOT allowing NYC to slide back to what it was before Rudy Giuliani did the heavy lifting!

      By his third term, the crisis term for ALL NYC Mayors, he had become “imperial” and had returned to thinking of New York City as only the borough of Manhattan below Harlem. Historically the Mayoralty of NYC is a springboard to nothing. It is a GOOD thing that Theodore Roosevelt lost his election for Mayor.

      Bloomberg’s other great decision was to appoint Raymond Kelly as Police Commissioner and keep him there for 11 years. Kelly a former Viet-nam War Marine Officer and Giuliani, a draft dodger never got along. Both went to Manhattan College at the same time but their concepts of Community Policing were identical and it showed.

    • Yes, Bloomberg ads are running rampant down here…..rumor has it that he was the last survivor of the Alamo and personally captured Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna that gave Texas its independence…little did I know.

      He is really after the delegates….

      By the way JAC, I see you missed something in your predictions…..how about a contested Democratic Convention? How many super delegates can be bought off by Bloomberg?

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Colonel

        My predictions were for DECEMBER only

        But I stand by my prediction there is NO CONTESTED Democratic Party convention. If Bloomberg were to gain momentum I would expect Biden to still have a majority by Convention time. I would expect if it came to a SECOND vote that Biden would gain more than Bloomberg.

        Caveat: This is assuming no more revelations or stupid stuff from Biden. I know that is a long shot but that is the basis of my claim. Biden is the Dem establishment guy. They don’t want Bloomberg cause he might get in the way of some of the socialist agenda. Biden will go along to remain popular.

  44. As I have warned……..it is now official, after the latest gun battle in Mexico just south of our border……Mexico……………our neighbor………………the country of Mexico……..is now under the control of three cartels. The new percentage, which finally agrees with the military, is 81% of Mexico is firmly in the control of cartels. This means the mayors, teachers, police, and commissioners are owned and operated by the cartels. We have been watching this in the border towns for three years and it is now finally out.

    The military assessment is slightly higher than the 81%…we have it pegged at 84.5%. Let me be very specific here…..it is not that the cartel is present in 84% of Mexico…it is that they are in firm control. They are now dividing up their industries to determine who will be in control of guns, human trafficking, drugs, imports, and exports.

    And we want to throw the borders wide open. There is apparently no limit to stupidity. It reigns.

    • Oh, for Mathius and his penchant for legal drugs…..the Sinaloa Cartel has a firm grip on the marijuana trade in Colorado….you know, one of the legalized marijuana states. Yep…..open them thar’ borders up….

      • Maybe if the state didn’t have to cater to the puritantical right, they wouldn’t have raised the prices so high and added so much red tape that a free market could crust the cartels?

        Also, not for nothing, but the problem ISN’T that the cartels are making money in CO on MJ. It’s that they are making money on ILLEGAL stuff and/or being violent. You’ll note that Phillip Morris doesn’t go around murdering people – that’s because the value of their legal activities are such that it’s not worth the risk. The more the cartels are dragged into legitimate enterprise, the more expensive and risky their illegal activities become.

        • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

          Forget Puritanical right. DOPE is something to TAX! Both Cuomo and Murphy strongly emphasize that in their campaigns to legalize it here in NJ and NY. And believe me, they try to sell it on that basis.

          Except for the fact you are too young to remember, the very same thing happened with gambling when it was legalized. It was ALL going to the schools! It was FOR the children! Now, how could one be against something FOR THE CHILDREN!

          Never fooled my old man though. Back in the early seventies he knew what would happen. The contradiction within the old man, a cynic who loved people and never lost his sense of humor.

          My wife hates it when I call him the old man….but with me it will always be a term of endearment, but admittedly something I’d never call him when he was alive.

          • Forget Puritanical right. DOPE is something to TAX! Both Cuomo and Murphy strongly emphasize that in their campaigns to legalize it here in NJ and NY. And believe me, they try to sell it on that basis.

            Because they HAVE TO in order to gain enough support to pass it.

            The left would probably be happy to tax it… a bit… but not up to “street value” such that the black market remains competitive.

            It’s only because the puritanical right would have lost their friggin’ minds if pot dropped to $10 / oz.. “THE LEFT IS ENCOURAGING DRUG USE!!”

            Except for the fact you are too young to remember, the very same thing happened with gambling when it was legalized. It was ALL going to the schools! It was FOR the children! Now, how could one be against something FOR THE CHILDREN!

            Same with the lottery… which, well, I guess that’s still gambling.. so nevermind.

            The upshot is that pot should be legal because it should be legal. Taxing it to an absurd level is counterproductive.

            My wife hates it when I call him the old man

            I call my childhood dog (RIP) the “old man.” He was born an old soul, lived as an old soul, and died an old soul. Best dog who ever lived – and, yes, I’m including both my current dogs and Canine Weapon.

            • There ain’t a puritanical right in Colorado anywhere unless they are in the mountains somewhere. They do not exist there.

            • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

              I include the lottery in “gambling” it is! The sales point there which caused Dad to laugh was that it was all for education so, if the old education NY budget was 4.8 Billion and the lottery raised two billion, then the next year’s budget reduced the state contribution to education to two point eight billion and then added the two billion in lottery proceeds! SEE, it all went to education!

        • I think when you blame the puritanical right you are wrong. The same thing is happening in CA, high taxes high regulation. The legislature here is totally dominated by the left so what the right wants is immaterial. We just lost a deputy sheriff here due to an illegal grow. The illegal market can undercut the legal merchants and growers. Not only that, their gardens are often on federal forest land so not even any real estate taxes.

          Personally I do not see the attraction of putting mind altering substances into your body.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            T-Ray

            Spend a few days on left wing web sites reading their comments. You will then understand the utility of mind altering substances and a coping mechanism. Bwahahahahaha

            • This blog is a mind altering substance. I feel like I’m on shrooms half the time. It’s like a world completely separated from anything I’ve ever experienced in the real world…

  45. Superficially, the tobacco industry and the marijuana industry are very similar.

    Both have to source a plant from various places (Brazil being a big one), they have to process it, distribute it, market it, sell it, etc. Neither gives a single flying crap about morality or the value of human life.

    Yet Phillip Morris does not murder people. Nor does it run any side businesses which murder people or perform any overtly illegal activities (such as human trafficking or dealing meth) despite the potential for these to be extremely profitable.

    Mathius asks: Why does a cartel engage in murder and other violent activities while Phillip Morris does not?

    • Point of order, sorta. I just checked with a “patient” friend of mine who uses a dispensary here in Michigan. Price of an oz of MJ…on special…$150. Can be as ‘high (bzzzz)’ as $300. Typically around $200/oz. So…about the same as street price around here. They also sell “shake” which is the scrapplings and scrumplets left around…usefull for edibles $50 – $75/oz

      So, I don’t know what that means in this convo. Maybe just useless info.

      • That’s kind of my point.

        An ounce of pot should COST approximately nothing. It grows on trees. It should cost the same as dried spinach.

        The reason it costs $150+ is almost entirely government (the cause and solution to all of life’s problems). Part of it is – of course – tax. Governments do love their sin taxes. Another part is supply shortages due to absurd regulatory red tape. Another part is the cost of complying with that red tape. Financing a problem for dispensaries because they cannot use the normal system since selling pot is illegal federally – banks won’t take their money or loan to them. There’s expensive mandatory independent lab testing requirements – and redone if they are processed (eg into edibles). The dispensaries and suppliers are denied write-offs which are available to other products (eg, cap-ex, electricity, etc). Probably a bunch of other stuff I’m missing, too, like security, licensing, advertising, etc. Probably something-something-something economies of scale, too.

        Plus they can’t really import it – and Colorado isn’t necessarily prime pot growing location – so it’s going to cost more from the get-go due to having to use hot-houses etc. If it were a “normal” product, we’d import it from Afghanistan in bulk at pennies on the dollar, process it for the same costs as any normal ingested product, and sold with normal taxes.

        If we treated cigarettes this way, they’d be $200 a pack. And you can bet that a black market would pop up to capitalize on that. (See also: Prohibition)

        It’s only because of all that nonsense that it’s so expensive.. and so profitable for the cartels.

    • Just A Citizen says:

      Mathius

      BECAUSE Tobacco companies were established and operate within a country that has long established and enforced laws along with an independent system of justice. If tobacco was centered in S. or C. America and the companies developed there, they would probably kill their competition with impunity.

      Corruption is a big enough problem here with our laws and traditions. Imagine what it would be without those laws and traditions.

      Supply/Demand and regulatory fixing do not account for all criminal behavior. Sure it can make things worse, but it does not account for the difference between Govt.s south of our border and the USA. For you see, the Cartels would have the same economic clout in the US they have in Mexico, if it were all just about the Benjamins.

      As for your general strategy, it would have to go to all goods and services, including all drugs. So I guess you are willing to remove all Tax supported funding to deal with the mess that results when people start Overdosing everywhere.

      I do think your approach could have merit……….. IF…………. we spent some time to first deal with the cultural norms which create the Demand. Like binge drinking vs. responsible drinking. AND, we remove all tax subsidized supports for helping people who then get hooked and become worthless. We should just put those folks in the Mars Colonization project and send them on their way pronto.

      • BECAUSE Tobacco companies were established and operate within a country that has long established and enforced laws along with an independent system of justice. If tobacco was centered in S. or C. America and

        I certainly admit there’s a cultural issue at play here… but consider that we COULD have our pot grown domestically by domestic companies. We CHOOSE not to.

        Similarly, not everything we import from LatAm necessarily begets criminal enterprise. We import lots of agriculture (which pot – essentially – is) without criminality. Sure, it’s far from perfect, but it isn’t exactly the Sinoloa Cartel.

        Corruption is a big enough problem here with our laws and traditions. Imagine what it would be without those laws and traditions.

        I think, perhaps, we’ve created the problem in South America or, at least, dramatically exacerbated it.

        They have a product in demand and WE are the once forcing it to be illegitimate. As the saying goes, in for a penny, in for a pound. Once the enterprise is criminal, why NOT go whole hog?

        There’s no reason these cartels can’t make just as much money off of us legally without violence or criminality. But we’ve offered them two choices: poverty or crime-that-pays. Why would you ever think they’d choose the former?

        Supply/Demand and regulatory fixing do not account for all criminal behavior.

        I never said it did.

        But is sure as hell opens up an opportunity for ilicit gain.

        Our meddling in the free market is what CREATES the opportunity for criminal enterprise to swoop in. Butt out, the price of pot collapses, the benefit to criminals evaporates because they need to compete on a roughly even playing ground while ALSO facing law enforcement for their criminality. That is a losing proposition.

        It’s why you don’t buy cigarettes on the street corner off some shady dude in a trench coat. The opening in the market just isn’t big enough to justify it. But bump the price up to $100 a pack and now things change.

        Sure it can make things worse, but it does not account for the difference between Govt.s south of our border and the USA.

        This is true. Absolutely.

        Then again, how much of the problem of “the governments of South America” is also the fault of US interventionalism?

        How much of it is due to generations of the “war on drugs” which essentially equates to (for them) “you can only make money by being criminals”?

        For you see, the Cartels would have the same economic clout in the US they have in Mexico, if it were all just about the Benjamins.

        They would.

        Maybe they SHOULD.

        So long as they obey the laws.

        As for your general strategy, it would have to go to all goods and services, including all drugs.

        I’m of the opinion that the cartels’ best option would be to sell insulin and other prescription (non-narcotic) drugs at high quality in the US. If I can get my prescription drugs at a fraction of the cost – and I can trust the quality – I might be willing to risk doing cash business with Trench Coat Guy.

        That said, of course, I generally agree. I think the government CAN tax things, CAN regulate thing.. but if it does so to an inelastic demand item to too great of an extent……. well…. something is going to be drawn in to fill that void.

        So I guess you are willing to remove all Tax supported funding to deal with the mess that results when people start Overdosing everywhere.

        Look, if YOU want to take a chance with YOUR life…. well… that’s YOUR choice.

        If YOU choose to do drugs and YOU overdose, then that’s YOUR problem, not mine.

        (disclaimer: does not apply to minors, the mentally ill, mentally incapable, or Canine Weapon)

        If you play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

        I do think your approach could have merit……….. IF…………. we spent some time to first deal with the cultural norms which create the Demand.

        I’m listening… I’m not necessarily in the BF camp that we need to just rip off the band-aid.

        Like binge drinking vs. responsible drinking.

        What? Like an ad campaign? Mandatory high school classes? Breathalizers that prevent a car from starting?

        AND, we remove all tax subsidized supports for helping people who then get hooked and become worthless.

        General agreement. I reserve the right to object on utilitarian grounds, however.

        That is, if it is determined that it’s better to council / treat people than lock them up.. from a cost / safety perspective. That is, if MY dollars are going to be spent dealing with the problem either by locking if/when they become junkies or by treating them… if it turns out that treatment is the more cost effective / safer-for-me option, then that’s the one I’d opt for. Not out of duty to THEM (they made their beds), but out of consideration for ME (because I’m not the one who chose to do meth).

        We should just put those folks in the Mars Colonization project and send them on their way pronto.

        Too expensive. It’s currently about $20k / kg to get into LEO. Mars is even more.

        How about dropping ’em in a volcano?

        ———————

        It bears repeating: It is my general philosophy that we have a moral obligation to help those who cannot help themselves. To help the needy by way of misfortune beyond their control. I do NOT believe we have an obligation to help those who willfully shoot themselves in the foot or those who are too lazy or entitled to help themselves – those people can go jump in a volcano.

        Eg. If you are too disabled to work, you should be provided for because we are a civilized society. If you are too disabled to work… because you hurt yourself trying to do a stunt on your motorcycle while high… you get nothing.

        Eg. If you have cancer because you just drew the shitty luck card, we should help you out. If you get cancer because you smoked three packs a day for 20 years, that really isn’t my problem.

        Eg. If you were doing your job in a warehouse and get laid off because the company went bankrupt, we – society – can and should help you out to ensure you don’t lose your home and starve while you diligently look for a new job. If you get fired because you showed up late every day and got drunk at a strip club over lunch, you get nothing.

  46. Kamala Harris is dropping out of the Presidential nomination race.

  47. So, Mathius, your answer is to make MJ legal all over the country and not tax it? Or tax it like booze and cigarettes…and you really think that will crush the cartel black market…..Wow..

    • So, Mathius, your answer is to make MJ legal all over the country

      Yes.

      and not tax it?

      No.

      Or tax it like booze and cigarettes…

      Yes.

      and you really think that will crush the cartel black market…..

      Is there a cartel black market for booze or cigarettes I’m unaware of..?

      Wow..

      I know. My genius never fails to amaze.

      • Poor Kamala Harris……what a spectacle. She announced her withdrawal in tears, blaming Tulsi….and she has 10 million left over.

      • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

        Cigarettes answer is YES, resoundingly! Load up a van in the Carolinas with cigarettes and sell them at quadruple prices in NYC Bodegas! Since nobody is getting killed, the stories appear on page 36 of the NY Post or Daily News!

      • Just A Citizen says:

        Mathius

        YES, there are black markets for both. As there is for handbags, designer clothing and expensive tools or auto parts.

        • Comparatively small-time, no? Any cigarette runners going around cutting people’s heads off, etc? Have any Mormon settlements been slaughtered by Carolina tobacco smugglers? I admit, I haven’t been reading the papers cover-to-cover, so I may have missed it.

          And, more to my point, the taxes on cigarettes in NY are… extreme. I get it – I do – I get it.. smoking is bad.. yea yea.. but if NY DIDN’T make it so expensive, this black market wouldn’t exist either.

          Again, you’re proving that these criminal activities, these black markets, exist solely on the back of government intervention (is it backward day? I feel like this should be YOUR argument, not mine). Remove the artificial price disparity and the black market disappears (and the criminality along with it).

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            I expounded a bit more above, but yes it is a supply/demand and thus pricing issue for the most part but NOT TOTALLY. It is my argument for the most part, but you sometimes go to far in your analysis. Much like the “L”ibertarians who just ASSUME how things will turn out. Ignoring evidence of contradictions due to other human behavior.

            I think it completely naive to think that violent cartels would suddenly become peaceful law abiding corporation if we legalized drugs. Because no matter the prices here, it is how they enforce their monopolies THERE that creates the real violence.

            And then there is the issue of ALL DRUGS vs. just Pot.

            THE ONLY REGULATIONS that should be applicable to growing and selling POT are the usual consumer safety issues. That wouldn’t take much of a tax to pay for the inspections of “commercial” growers and manufacturers. Of course there would need to be exceptions for “cottage growers and dispensaries”. Small farmers should not have to cover the costs of mega industrialized corporate farms……….. bwahahahahaha.

            P.S.: I find your argument that the Dems tax the hell out of stuff to get Reps to approve as absolutely IDIOTIC. Just saying. The Dems have never avoided taxing the crap out of anything and everything.

            • Rumor has it that Canine Weapon has been running across the border with saddlebags…..only a rumor.

            • I think it completely naive to think that violent cartels would suddenly become peaceful law abiding corporation if we legalized drugs.

              To be fair, I don’t think this would be a sudden snap-of-the-fingers change.

              But I do think that, given the choice between highly profitable legal options and highly profitable but dangerous (for themselves) illegal options, they’ll choose the former.

              Right now, the choice we’re offering them is: be safe and poor or take a risk and be rich. Of course they’re going to choose the later. And you can’t blame THEM for making that choice. I mean, you can.. they did make the choice… but WE set the table. WE gave them those options.

              If you leave the cookie jar out and your kid sneaks an extra cookie, yea, sure, it’s their fault.. but it’s YOUR fault for setting them up for failure.

              And then there is the issue of ALL DRUGS vs. just Pot.

              And then there’s this issue….

              Ain’t that the truth.

              Not all drugs are created the same.

              I know how much I looooovee me some Morphine. It’s been 20 years and I still remember it… I made a specific point of putting it on my chart for my surgery in a two weeks – no morphine. Why? Because I love it way too much. So that’s not a door I’m willing to open.

              So I get it, I do.

              And they have some crazy addictive new stuff out there… and teenagers are stupid and think they’re invincible… so… yea… I get where you’re coming from here.

              THE ONLY REGULATIONS that should be applicable to growing and selling POT are the usual consumer safety issues.

              Correct!!!

              That wouldn’t take much of a tax to pay for the inspections of “commercial” growers and manufacturers.

              Correct!!!

              Of course there would need to be exceptions for “cottage growers and dispensaries”. Small farmers should not have to cover the costs of mega industrialized corporate farms……….. bwahahahahaha.

              I mean.. yea.. maybe… I’d have to see the specifics of your proposal.

              P.S.: I find your argument that the Dems tax the hell out of stuff to get Reps to approve as absolutely IDIOTIC. Just saying.

              Well I wouldn’t want to risk changing your opinion of me, now would I?

              The Dems have never avoided taxing the crap out of anything and everything.

              Except stuff they like… like drugs.

              Both sides like taxes on stuff the OTHER side likes. The Blues would love to tax guns and religion, but make hookers and blow tax-free.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                From above: “What? Like an ad campaign? Mandatory high school classes? Breathalizers that prevent a car from starting?”

                What I was getting to is the difference in teenage drinking habits in the USA vs. Europe. In the latter drinking is part of the “teaching” done in the household. I am told that drinking does not carry the mystic because children are exposed and taught responsible consumption habits at home. So the BINGE drinking we see when teens go to college is not as prevalent. Which leads me to think the same could be true for Pot use or other not so addictive substances.

                I do see a Govt. Ad., campaign coming as part of this. They won’t be able to help themselves. Smoke Responsibly.

              • What I was getting to is the difference in teenage drinking habits in the USA vs. Europe. In the latter drinking is part of the “teaching” done in the household. I am told that drinking does not carry the mystic because children are exposed and taught responsible consumption habits at home.

                I have heard comparable things.

                I never touched a drop until my senior year of HS. And, even then, I only had a handful of limited opportunities. So when I got to college.. man.. I wen HOG WILD.

                Frankly, it’s a miracle I didn’t die or commit any felonies.

                Being given the opportunity to learn and acclimate and de-mystify as a younger teen could have a big difference. Or not. What do I know?

                So the BINGE drinking we see when teens go to college is not as prevalent. Which leads me to think the same could be true for Pot use or other not so addictive substances.

                Probably.. maybe check in with Amsterdam and see how they handle it. Or any middle eastern country with hashish? I think you’re onto something here which is that half the appeal is the “rebellion” and hedonistic indulgence of a heretofore forbidden thing. Take that away and moderation would be more prevalent.

                I do see a Govt. Ad., campaign coming as part of this. They won’t be able to help themselves. Smoke Responsibly.

                Will you sign my petition to draft Smokey The Bear as the spokesman?

          • Pot should be decriminalized. Let people grow their own. Other drugs are a bit more complicated. The cartels would just find other stuff to run. Guns are still on the black market. that might expand. Lots of things could be sold illegally. Look how long the mafia survived after prohibition ended.

            • Close.. pot should be decriminalized legalized.

              The cartels would just find other stuff to run.

              How ’bout insulin and other prescription drugs. I’m told that an epi pen costs ~$10 and sells for ~$600… seems there’s a pretty good market opportunity there..

              The trick is building up enough credibility that people trust your product with their lives.. But I already trust Pfizer about as much as MS13, so that’s not much of a stretch.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                What happens if drugs are legalized? WHO gets into the drug business immediately???

                What is the Cartel response to the NEW COMPETITION which suddenly springs up?????

                Well in Oregon and Montana the Cartels showed up and threatened the new Pot growers. And that was just the growing side. One operation in Mt. openly stated they closed down because they couldn’t handle living under threat of the cartels.

                If the Cartels control the Govt. in S America or much of Mexico, would they allow drugs to be legalized there or keep them illegal so they can continue controlling competition?

                The whole drug thing is a great study on the affects of Govt. intervention in human behavior and thus the economic and political activity of humans.

          • Just A Citizen says:

            Mathius

            Tobacco costs by state. In Idaho costs are low but use is still declining, along national averages. So the idea that taxing is needed to reduce use doesn’t seem to hold water. It is purely a REGRESSIVE tax on poor and working folks.

            http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/cigarette-prices-by-state/

            Now to your primary point. Everyone who buys Cigs in a low cost state and transports them home to a high cost state is guilty of Bootlegging. They are in reality, part of the black market. It is true the don’t go around shooting up others but then we don’t know what would happen if their supplies were cut off.

            • Tobacco costs by state. In Idaho costs are low but use is still declining, along national averages. So the idea that taxing is needed to reduce use doesn’t seem to hold water.

              When I sold cigarettes in high school, a carton of Reds cost 18 bucks. I’d sell ’em for a dollar a stick, $10 a pack.

              Now it costs ~$5 a pack in Idaho. That’s 2.5-3x what they were when I was a kid in the late ’90’s. I don’t even want to guess what they were when you were a kid.

              Your assertion that the increased price isn’t needed is unsupported.

              All you can say is that, if higher prices beget lower usage (seems like a pretty solid proposition), then ~$5 is high enough for people living in Idaho on Idaho wages for it to have an effect over time.

              It is purely a REGRESSIVE tax on poor and working folks.

              It’s a coercive sin tax.

              And, yes, it is regressive. (again, did we switch sides? I could swear I’m usually the one bitching about regressive taxes while everyone else here lobbies for them)

              Everyone who buys Cigs in a low cost state and transports them home to a high cost state is guilty of Bootlegging.

              Yup.. ole great-grand-pappy used to brew bathtub gin… it seems there’s some pirate in the genes after all…

              They are in reality, part of the black market.

              Yes… but minor. And generally not a threat to anyone or anything. They aren’t cutting anyone’s heads off.

              It is true the don’t go around shooting up others but then we don’t know what would happen if their supplies were cut off.

              They would go back to driving for Uber.

              It is true the don’t go around shooting up others but then we don’t know what would happen if their supplies were cut off.

              You can’t “cut off” their supplies. All you can do is eliminate the artificial price disparity which CREATES the market incentive for their criminal activity. They are simply obeying the almighty hand of Adam Smith. The market presents a price dislocation and someone is going to load up an F150 and drive from Idaho to NY, blasting country music the whole way.

              If the prices were the same (or close enough that the risk was no longer warranted) (or close enough that the cost of transport was no longer viable) then what are they going to do? March on the capital and demand they reinstate the taxes so that they can start bootlegging again? Once the market window closes, the Invisible Hand will shuffle them along to the next best thing.

              • Just A Citizen says:

                Mathius

                Don’t think so on the Idaho cost vs. use. The cost may be higher than the good ol’ days but it is not that far off the regular rate of inflation. More to do with all the anti smoking campaigns in the schools and health awareness among adults.

                There may be a price point where smoking is curtailed. But I don’t think that is driving the decline here. Especially when you can buy tobacco on the Reservation without the tax. Which I left off before and is probably why total costs are lower in Idaho and Montana. Too much competition with the State that is undercutting their taxing power.

  48. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    Want to touch on this idea you offered that WE are responsible for the Cartels. Now lets remember they were not the power house when POT was the biggest thing. I think you will find their growth in power comes with Cocaine. Largely because POT could be grown in other places. But lets look at how this worked over time.

    The POT growers started on the Federal lands of the USA and then in Mexico. They moved south and established plantations there for a reason. The corruption already existed. That and those countries didn’t have the resources to police the jungle. Only there could they get the foothold to stay in business and eventually gain power over Govt. It was not the poverty choice which created this power, but the corruption of those who were not poor. The Govt/Ruling Class.

    It is my theory, based on some study of history, that a big reason for the corruption south of the border is the difference in affect of British/Dutch colonization vs. that of Spanish colonization. The latter were far more brutal from the beginning and carried that into the various Govt. institutions they created. The USA was a late comer to the S. and C. America game so I have a hard time believing our Banana companies formed the culture that was already there when they arrived.

    Now an additional point. As corruption grows in the USA the gains from illegal activity by Cartels also increases. All that money has to move across international borders, even if digitally, and it has to get laundered among thousands of shell companies and other outlets. That could not happen without people in the USA helping. Notice how the big busts by ATF/FBI always show drugs but not the money? Why haven’t they found the truck loads of cash being sent home that was used to buy the drugs?

    Other thought: And if profit without crime is in their blood, why didn’t they just get into the Coffee business?? Maybe it has to do with $/unit prices as in $ per oz. and the ability to smuggle small sized things which have high conversion rather than bulky things with low conversion. Or maybe, it is because drugs are a consumer product while most legal commodities are wholesale products. Wholesale products are easier to regulate.

    I do not subscribe to the theory that I gave my kid no choice or set him/her up for failure by leaving the cookie jar on the counter. They FAILED, them, not me. The only way to place blame on me was for me to never discuss or make sure they understood it was wrong. Because no human, grown or kid, knows otherwise unless given instruction.

    • Stephen K. Trynosky says:

      JAC, It is not just your theory. There was a learned piece some years back on the failure of colonial rule based on the Colonial Power.

      They actually ranked the failures. Belgium was top of the list followed by Dutch, Portuguese and Spanish. Then the French and the British. Germany and the US got in the game too late though Germany was racing for the bottom.

      The Spanish own the messes South of the border. They had a history of abject corruption which they passed on. Nothing changed! Evene Argentina which had virtually no native population and is 90 plus percent European can’t get it right. The Spanish themselves have had a hard time getting it right at home which is why teh Spanish Civil War was such a mess. (Jury still out on that one!).

  49. Just A Citizen says:

    Interesting as it relates to Cocaine. From Business Insider:

    A struggling legal economy — and a dearth of alternatives presented by the government — have contributed to the increase in coca production in Colombia, which now outstrips that of the second- and third-biggest producers combined. The Colombian government’s lack of follow-through on crop-substitution programs and failure to offer alternative development projects have earned protests from coca farmers.

    Other information in the story shows that the growing is a local thing, funded by the wholesale buyers, Cartels. Although not the same Cartels as we here about from Mexico.

    I urge everyone to google up how cocaine is made. It will curl your hair.

  50. Just A Citizen says:

    Mathius

    “Will you sign my petition to draft Smokey The Bear as the spokesman?”

    No way in hell you eastern transplanted varmint. Smokey is SACRED, keep yer darn hands off.

    Now Woodsy the Owl is another thing. You can use him all you want.. Wise Bird and all.

  51. …..they did make the choice… but WE set the table. WE gave them those options.

    If you leave the cookie jar out and your kid sneaks an extra cookie, yea, sure, it’s their fault.. but it’s YOUR fault for setting them up for failure.

    You CANNOT really believe this, correct?

    So when I got to college.. man.. I wen HOG WILD. College does not count. I thought you knew this. College is a “right of passage.” I never drank until college and have not since…..it ….just…..does….not….count.

%d bloggers like this: