Mark Davis

I'd say that you could make the same argument with most any program in our budget. You or I may personally disagree on any one program, but they all have people who would talk about how absolutely necessary they are. When it comes to Israel, Taiwan, Ukraine, it's probably as close as we would be on agreement. I'd actually like us to find a way to support Israel, Ukraine, and Taiwan. I'd just like us to honestly find a way to pay for it. I personally am opposed though to doing more Gaza funding because we have no control over those funds and I believe a large majority of it is commandeered by Hamas. I don't like that part of this bill. We can argue the roughly $10B that goes into that and how relevant it is in relation to our deficit. However, I think of things in these terms. If we have roughly 330 million people today in the U.S., that's $30 for every man, woman, and child. My family of 4 is essentially borrowing another $120 for that line item. The $90B bill itself is about $273 for every man, woman, and child. For a family of 4, it's over $1000. Again, maybe worth it, but it's real money and not exactly insignificant. All these programs and spending bills add up.

I actually tend to agree that these are important, very important things. It is true, especially in my view in the case of China/Taiwan that if we don't support them now it may cost us more later. However, we do have to come to grips with the fact we can't afford to keep paying for this and all the programs we run today. We can point fingers at both sides for spending money we don't have, but it's foolish to keep ignoring inflation and to think it's only Covid related. Our time to pay the piper is coming. While I don't agree with all of the rationale of some of the no votes, I do agree that we need to secure our border and that is a first step. I'm all for helping Israel, and yes Ukraine. But we should find the money from another program. And the question is always, which one? But there has to be an answer because we can't keep printing money, spending more than we take in, and expecting inflation to remain in check. They are painful choices, but any of them are preferable to taking the path we are on, which is to spend until we can no longer sell our debt or inflation grows even steeper. That's why eventually, regardless of what politicians tell us, entitlements of all kinds are going to have to be reformed. I have lost hope that it will be by choice and to head it off in as painless of a way as possible, but rather when we are given no choice. The population itself is too addicted to the government and not wanting to give up their share of what they are getting. Nobody can win office by running against these things. It's too easy to tell everyone we can have full Social Security benefits, pay for social safety nets, healthcare, all of these things that are simply no longer long term realities.

Kennedy!

All good with me. You've been around a long time, as have I, and I have no reason to think you wouldn't be straight up about it. To add, while I think that likely means Trump is elected, there's also the chance that with guys this age running that one or both don't make it through November. To me that's why I like the field even though I do favor Trump in a likely heads up race.

I'm good with it if you are. We can find someone mutually agreed to hold it if you want at some point, or I'm good taking you at your word on it. Either way is fine with me. I don't think either of us are going to skip on $500.

So you want Joe Biden at even vs the field? I'll take the field at any amount, not a joke at all.

At this point we just set off an expensive fireworks show that the taxpayers get to pay for. By the time we did this, anything we hit was empty.

Back around 1991 this guy was ranked the top RHP prospect in all of baseball by one of the major publications.

Great summary. The fiscal argument seems to be falling apart with how the large cities are sinking with the financial burden of these folks.

Who knew that going to jail would serve as a deterrent?

To win a civil war type battle you have to hold ground and occupy what isn't yours. It's not as simple as using state lines. I'm sure the folks in Austin wouldn't want to be on the "red team" and the the folks outside of Chicago in Illinois wouldn't want to be on the "blue team". If you want to know how easy it is to hold land where you aren't wanted and the populace is armed, check out how Afghanistan went. Not that it would ever happen, but the only way to split would be some sort of settlement. A true civil war given the modern state of firearms and the numbers readily available in the population would be endless slaughter.

Johnny Ace

Yep. The lady he killed was stabbed and beaten to death. He was given a merciful way to go comparatively. For any of you who have had the displeasure of driving by/through Atmore, another comparable punishment would have been to release him into that area without the ability to leave. Although I guess he could have passed his time in the Indian video casino.

These things didn't happen under Mayor Nagin's watch

Sign me up for Gov. Noem

When it comes to asset splits I'd say it has to do with level of wealth as well as age. If you're 45 or 50, and your net worth is under $1MM you want to be more aggressive than someone who might be at $5MM. That person with the larger net worth has already won the game, it's about making sure you don't blow it before the clock runs out by taking unnecessary risks. You can take the lower returns and never worry about living a very affluent lifestyle.

So much for those established norms everyone was pearl clutching about.

Damn, whatever happened to people who were just gay? We aren't doing anyone any favors by pandering to these fantasies that men are somehow women and vice versa, and that genetics and chromosomes somehow aren't the determining factor.

Personally I always love it when that happens

So was MLB right then or right now? It can't be both. This reminds me of the fans who are so invested in their teams they insist they have the better team even though they lost a game 35-7. The numbers show what happened, yet it's like the data doesn't exist to some. We have the same voter ID laws here, there is no danger of a D winning statewide here barring someone being a pedophile essentially. It doesn't bother me to show my license and is a very simple process.

Even Rob Manfred and MLB have backed up on the GA stance because the numbers were irrefutable. They can't come out and flatly say they were wrong, but have done it through their actions of placing the MLB All Star Game right back in Atlanta. Nothing has changed other than the turnout numbers show that initial stance was incorrect.

I knew I'd heard that democracy was going to be on the ballot this election.

It's like the neighborhood bullies with their tactics and violence. Maybe it's naive but I think 20 years ago they might have gotten a little more resistance to these aggressions. It's sickening.

I've worked there quite a bit. And it's very true California as a whole has great looking women, especially if you like Asian women, and I'm a fan. But to me saying she's a 2 or 3 means if you pull 10 random women her age off the street there she's only hotter than 1-2. That's not close to being true even in CA. I've spent most every fall weekend my whole life on SEC campuses including my college years so I feel I've got a pretty good gauge of what hot is and isn't. Her mouth and personality are detractors, but if we are basing it on looks unless you just have a thing where brunettes aren't your thing, she's pretty good for a woman over 35. She's not perfect, but she's definitely in the top quartile.

She really should have just stuck with being a Sugar Baby. She's still hot but she needs to not talk.