Engorgeous George

Ahh language. Gain control of it and maybe you can redefine reality. Call market interference "corrections" and maybe folks will believe it. Call health care services "public health care" and maybe the public has to pay for it.

You do not understand the concept of balanced equations. You, and Democrats in general seem to think you can shift money from one side of an equation to another and that it will have no ramifications for the side from which it was taken. You believe wealth can magically be created through legislation. It cannot. It can only be shifted, and in the shifting there is resentment and loss, and of course those doing the shifting think their efforts are worthy of some percentage of that shifted. The only way to create value is through work, through production, through effort, not through legislation. Democratic policies appeal to you for psychological reasons. Like a child you believe things should be fair and you want to make them so, in your mind. News flash. The world is not fair, eagles eat bunnies and bears eat salmon, and bacteria and viruses eat the child prodigy just before she writes down the solution to cold fusion. Your attempts at fairness seem to you to produce better outcomes because you do not see the whole picture. You believe legislation has made things more efficient as you like the redistribution, but there is no way to know how inefficent things have been made since the other outcome, the outcome from noninterference is never known once the interference has occured. What we do know is that folks addicted to power, folks who seek dominion over others make a very nice living being nonproductive, selling their words for the labor of others. They skim value and skimmed value for no production is by definition inefficeint.

As are those, like Biden and Harris, who do not believe in the sanctity of contracts, like student loans. If you believe in unexpectedly dismissing contract obligations you make it very hard for capitalism to work. You create uncertainty obligations will be fulfilled, and by whom. Manufacturers of durable goods need to know that futures orders will be honored and paid for. Lessors of capital assets need to know that the terms of the lease will be honored. The fuel of capitalism is credit. Nearly as important as honoring debts is predictable inflation. How does one construct a futures contract with terms certain if one suspects inflation will negate the value of payments anticipated? Sure one can build in riders addressing the variability, but then additional riders will have to cap the amount of variability making contracts harder to conclude. I am not saying vote for Trump. Myself, I could never do so for a variety of reasons. I am saying you don't appreciate the very system you rely upon for your living. You lease properties. Democratic policies provided rent forgiveness during covid, as if the Lessor does not have exopenses and does not need that income. How many capitalist went bankrupt because Democrat policies removed their cash flow and their protections, their court remedies during covid? I cannot vote for for those who think they can meddle with the laws of capitalism through legislation and believe they can control the outcomes. (You are messing with the primal forces of nature Mr. Beale, and I won't have it!)

She doesn't feel no ways tired.

Rick Berry's method has the ball traveling the shortes distance through the ark of the shot. The ball is essentially released 12 feet from the basket rather than 15. The physics favor it as to both aim and the velocity of the shot meaning it can settle on the rim and go in and not bounce off.

Idaho could be divided into two, Idaho and Idaprude

She could talk about the time she faced down the notorious gang leader Super Sugar Crisp, or talk about her Aunt Gertie who was in a plane that crashed while she was searching for Amelia Earhart and who was accepted into a tribe of cannibals when she taught them the proper way to eat a man.

Rhode island and Connecticutt could be rolled into one called the Bowels of Massachusetts. Delaware could be called jersey's Anus.

Kristi Noem is hot, dog killer or not.

I liked the ones from the backs of Comics. With those bad boys you could see right through womens clothes.

Each has their separate charm.

I do not agree with term limits for SCOTUS. I do believe in age limits, no ruling Justices after they reach 72 years of age. After that they may stay on as Emeritus Justices advising the Chief Justice as to judicial codes of ethics for the Supremes and all federal courts, and advising court personnel and the many law clerks. They would also be a resource to the Chief Justice and the Associate Justices.

They just leave out extra bowls of food and water and put down a bunch of papers.

Won't using those lenses when you already have 20/20 vision end up damaging your eyesight?

What about Michigan and Upper Michigan?

I thought the right to choose was sent back to the States, the entity closer to the people, so that the people may determine the extent, the breadth of that right. I would not call that erradicating the right.

Sure, you're fine with two Carolinas, but let the dakotas party it up and you are against it. You are an anti-Dakota-ite.

I had a friend and mentor. He was in the 704 Intel Group in Viet nam. Upon rfeturning he worked for the CIA and then for the Attorney General's Office in my state. He use to say "never ascribe to a conspiracy that which can adequately be explained by incompetence". He was a smart man. Oh, obviously he was neither the first nor the last to say that.

Well trained monkeys which have had their full spectrum of rabies shots.

Not if it was my right nut. Thing is huge.

I agree defining good behavior would likely start and maybe end as an exercise in partisanship. In the end, however, I have some faith that the Code of Ethics for the Supremes would likely mirror pretty closely those Codes already widely in place for State and Federal Judges. I believe it would end up being based on the Model Codes. Hopefully it would be adhered to more stringently than some judges and D.A.'s do now with their current obligations

I was a very successful trial attorney. I was also universally successful in my few forays into the appellate courts. i never argued in front of the State or the U..S. Supremes. I am familiar with Constitutional law and have a Constitutional philosophy as well as a judicial one. I would be a very poor Supreme Court Justice. The scholarship required for an effective Justice is a unique trait and frankly beyond me. Being an effective Justice is truly a unique skill set, so unique that few if any of the current Justices really possess the essential skill set.

Can you stab somebody with a hydrogen bomb?

I'd be surprised if you or anyone had. It takes a particularly verulent form of mental illness to follow me down the pathways I tread.