Andy9o8

She has more musical ability in her pinky-toe than you'll have in a lifetime. How many Grammys do you have? Anyone with the slightest knowledge of the history of American government would piss his pants laughing at that one. I mean, really.

Fortunately, freedom for the citizenry, is not determined by what makes the family of cops feel safe. Sound bytes are not discourse.

Obama appoints like-minded heads of government agencies to do his bidding in his way. Sounds like a catchy sound-byte there, Big Guy. And it's true. I'm sure you feel so. Anyhow, this is about net neutrality, not about firearms, or encyclopedic knowledge thereof.

So any one of those pouches incorporated into the front of a seat or the inside of a car door qualifies. I can't imagine how that makes a cop making a traffic stop one bit safer than with a gun under the seat of the car (which would seem to be unlawful). I wonder how the parents, spouses and children of LEOs in Kentucky feel about that?

Not defending the Klan. They were terrorists just like ISIS. The difference is, the Klan were outlaws within their country. ISIS, on the other hand, established their own "country" and they are the rulers and law-makers of that country. The Klan was acting contrary to the law, and ISIS thinks that mass-murder is okay within the law. Nonsense. Declaring yourself to be a government of a new nation state does not make you a government of a nation state. He's said it twice now, he's obviously just going to keep repeating it.

"NJ drops gun charge against retired teacher over centuries-old flintlock gun" http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/02/26/nj-prosecutor-drops-gun-charge-against-retired-teacher-over-centuries-old/ Now, how about changing the law so it doesn't apply to antiques, so such travesties don't happen again. Well, you're the expert on the subject, Big Guy. Git er done!

Obama appoints like-minded heads of government agencies to do his bidding in his way. Sounds like a catchy sound-byte there, Big Guy.

Chew on this one for a bit. http://blogs.findlaw.com/law_and_life/2013/10/legal-for-kids-to-drink-alcohol-with-parents.html Pretty amusing re: NH, considering its official motto is "Live Free Or Die".

Or at least since the Montana state legislator proposed a law outlawing yoga pants about 2 weeks ago. Both these tools are Republicans. I don't get it - the GOP's core belief is that less government is good, and that new laws should be sensible and passed prudently and sparingly. Seems these particular guys have a bit of trouble staying on message. If it makes you feel any better, Billy, the vast majority of dumb-assed state bills and local ordinances proposed by individual dumb-assed legislators usually die in infancy, and don't become law. A few manage to slip through, but most don't.

That's roughly 20% of Democrats who voted for it, a/k/a about 80% of Democrats who did not vote in favor of it. Personally, I don't think that's very bipartisan; it's just something less than a 100% party-line vote. Mind you, I came of age in the pre-Gingrich era, when strictly party-line votes in Congress were not virtually universal; for me, that level of permanent divisiveness is still a "new normal". Having said that, I'll agree with those who think a lot of this is politically-motivated. But specifically, I'll betcha it's one salvo of payback for Boehner's big "fuck you" to Obama by going behind the White House's back and unilaterally inviting Netanyahu for his speech. (In other words, Boehner did the first "fuck you". The veto is Obama's "fuck you right back".) With that single amateurish move, Boehner just guaranteed that the modest amount of cooperation he might have had from the White House will now be zero for the next 2 years. Neither house of congress has a veto-proof GOP majority, so not much legislation is going to escape Obama's veto pen wherever he chooses to wield it. Boehner's going to pay a political price for pulling that stunt, and if he thinks the GOP will be able to spin the resulting impasse to their favor in the eyes of the large Moderate wing of the electorate (pssst.. those are the ones who actually decide the elections...) come the 2016 election season, I'm predicting his gamble will lose. This right here sums up how horse shit our political system has become. I am tired of the fighting, and stonewalling, withholding of funds from this, ear marks, Louisiana purchases, black balling because you did not support my bill etc. It's time for a major change to fix this. I wonder what the right answer is. I don't disagree with your gut sentiment, but frankly, that's not the way politics in government has become, it's the way it has always been, especially in democratic or representative governments. As is sometimes said, it's a wretched system, but any other system is worse. Alternatives? Well, to the one extreme, anarchy would inevitably and rapidly lead to the formation of alliances, then factions, then horse-trading (including political reward and punishment), so that would be no solution; it would simply arise a new phoenix out of the ashes of the old. A middle ground, like eliminating parties and partisanship? Washington and John Adams both advocated an absence of factions in government, but they were naive: factionalism is basic human nature. To the other extreme, the only other theoretically-viable alternative, then, as I see it, would be government by decree by a highly repressive, single-point dictatorship. And, you know, boo on that.

Old Harry looks like he pissed off the wrong guy. Note which side of his face. Also note that not only are Bill Clinton and Obama both lefties, they're also both lefties.

Clinton knew how to relieve all that pent-up tension and frustration of office.

Well isn't that ironic, in light of his other unconstitutional actions, like his immigration edict. Now all of a sudden he's concerned about following "proper" procedures and our national interest. Peshaw! As I said above, politics is give and take. When any Speaker of the House gives any President of the United States a big, public, disrespectful "fuck you" like Boehner did, there's a price to be paid. That's the reality; best embrace it.

That's roughly 20% of Democrats who voted for it, a/k/a about 80% of Democrats who did not vote in favor of it. Personally, I don't think that's very bipartisan; it's just something less than a 100% party-line vote. Mind you, I came of age in the pre-Gingrich era, when strictly party-line votes in Congress were not virtually universal; for me, that level of permanent divisiveness is still a "new normal". Having said that, I'll agree with those who think a lot of this is politically-motivated. But specifically, I'll betcha it's one salvo of payback for Boehner's big "fuck you" to Obama by going behind the White House's back and unilaterally inviting Netanyahu for his speech. (In other words, Boehner did the first "fuck you". The veto is Obama's "fuck you right back".) With that single amateurish move, Boehner just guaranteed that the modest amount of cooperation he might have had from the White House will now be zero for the next 2 years. Neither house of congress has a veto-proof GOP majority, so not much legislation is going to escape Obama's veto pen wherever he chooses to wield it. Boehner's going to pay a political price for pulling that stunt, and if he thinks the GOP will be able to spin the resulting impasse to their favor in the eyes of the large Moderate wing of the electorate (pssst.. those are the ones who actually decide the elections...) come the 2016 election season, I'm predicting his gamble will lose.

I appreciate the maxim of "Take the fight to the enemy", but on a practical level, that's a formula for constant engagement in foreign war, and that's unacceptable. I'd say, if the threat is potentially big enough - like Russia and China today, for example, our security requires that they be faced and contained globally. But as for the rest of them, concentrate on impenetrable security at home first. You know, like the force field we have at the Rio Grande.

So on a scale of 100, you'd draw your line somewhere less than 100, and somewhere more than 15? Is that about right? I'd take each example on a case by case basis. And if I was going to send someone else's American children in harm's way on behalf of World Human Decency, I'd insist on an equal contribution of other nations' (like our closest Western allies, not just the Third World ones) blood and treasure, too. I don't know about you, but I'm sick of our blood and treasure carrying our European allies' load. The Europeans are scared of Russia, worried about China, fed up with Greece and envious of Germany. And in the meantime they're all willing to combat world evil right down to the last American. Fuck that.

Emotionally, I'd love to always be able to step in and stop all of that. Why didn't the US step in and stop Pol Pot from murdering 1 million Cambodians? What about Idi Amin killing hundreds of thousands of his own people? How about... well, you know all the historical examples, even if we start at no earlier than, say, 1946. I'm tired of the US always being sidled with the burden of being the world's policeman, or at least always the first string on the filed. Yes, ISIS all deserve to be naped. And their arch-enemy in Syria, Assad, deserves to be tried for his own crimes against humanity and hanged. There are plenty of homicidal warlords and their corrupt politician co-conspirators in Mexico who deserve early dirt naps. And I'm very much the opposite of an isolationist. But on behalf of the baby boomers, I'm sick of American lives being sacrificed to fight local or even regional evil thousands of miles from our shores; and that evil will always be there. "So where do we draw the line?" you'd quite reasonably ask. Well, I realize it's a bit arbitrary, but it's a question of degree. First, ask whether the evil is a threat to American security. Not to the security of American corporate industry, but the security of our children in their beds. That's why, for example, I did support hot pursuit of al-Quaeda into Afghanistan after 9/11. Next, as I said, it's a question of degree. I agree with you (as did Churchill; no I'm not equating you with Churchill ) that the evil of Hitler and Imperial Japan was confronted way too late. So would I draw the line? I guess it's at something less than Hitler, and something more than ISIS.

I've always thought the Gorn captain was pretty cool

No, someone complained about posters presuming to list some women in the "toughest guys" thread. Yep, and I protest girls being allowed into the boyscouts too. Maybe if you stopped competing with the crocidilians you'd appreciate that you're all happy reptiles.

To a certain extent it does, at least sometimes. Not at the foot soldier level, but top brass most definitely influence, or at least try to influence governments' decisions on whether or not to deploy a force or engage in hostilities. (Also see my oft-repeated commentary on the military-industrial complex - it most definitely does influence policy.) At some point, as often as not, the military decision-making and the political decision-making eventually conjoin.

No, someone complained about posters presuming to list some women in the "toughest guys" thread.

Truth be told, domestic politicizing of deployment of the US military has existed pretty much since the founding of the Republic. And the practice of the use of the US Military to project power beyond US borders, including both the deft and the clumsly use of trumped-up pretexts for doing so, have existed certainly no later than the US-Mexico war of annexation in the 1840s. Indeed, I recall reading in one of Ulysses Grant's biographies that although he served in that war as a young officer, he always felt that the US's opportunistic aggression against Mexico was at least partly unjust, as it served the domestic interests of those in upper echelons of public and private power who would not themselves be placed in harm's way (sound familiar?), and the resulting loss of lives on both sides were tragic and could have been avoided. A bit beyond the scope of your post, but that's me.

Curious - is your inquiry motivated by the dust-up over wind turbines near Burnaby?

I really don't have time to be quibbling over skateboards with Pesky Little Brother on DZ. Lots of guys on here are into that, I'm just not one of them.

Rats exonerated. Gerbils implicated.