Engorgeous George

The beauty and the curse of our system is the ignorant are allowed opinions, votes, and the right to express either. Tim is supremely confident in his own intelligence and in the rightness of his ill-founded opinions. To some extent we are all guilty of the same hubris though hopefully in magnitudes less than is he.

If the organizers of a beauty (scholarship) pageant wish to allow this and to have judges taht sanction this that is their right. Whether maryland ought to have its name associated with this is an interesting question, to me. Whether women ought to have their gender associated with this is another intersting question. Perhaps it ought to be called the Miss Maryland beauty and mockery of womanhood pageant

For the record you can more or less guess which states by guessing blue states on an electoral map but with Michigan and Florida flipped. I support the right of those states to ban the appliance if they can do so under their state constitutions and I do not think the ruling yesterrday has any real impact on thier right to do so.

Oh I agree. Pretty clearly Biden thought he might engage with the parachutist to his left, to acknowledge his presence and maybe even to give him a thumbs up and a few words of thanks for his service. That was not the time for it, but I understood his intent and any who claim not to are doing so for partisan purposes. I did find the gesture funny as you could see him, Biden, thinking after he turned and wandered over how do I express my appreciation in Italian which I do not speak and so he came up with the halting "thumbs up" hoping it is a universal sign, which it is not. The thing is, he need not have worried. The odds are high that the parachutist speaks at least some English while Biden speaks no Italian.

No it was not, not remotely, not as a matter of law. Her standard of review, that she feels a thing ought to be, is no legal standard of review. She is a judicial disgrace. That her end result is what you wish the law to be does not change the fact that she has a job. She has procedures she has to follow and she threw them all aside to argue for a legislative, not a judicial, result.

Yes, he was interested in what was happening off to his left. The thing is the exercise at that time was a photo op with the other leaders. They were gathered and all looking in one direction when he got distracted like a dog who sees a squirrel. He forgot what was happening. He had to be corraled and the other leaders had to reform around him for the pictures. This is not to be read as an endorsement of Trump who has never been able to keep his train of thought on one track.

He did have months to prepare. it was the latest SOTU address in my memory as for when it was delivered in the calendar year. It was also a rehash of previous canned pieces from other speeches, cobbled together. As for me I would not say he aced it. I would say he exceeded my expectations. Regardless, neither of these men should be at the controls of our government. Neither is fit to drive their own car or to be left alone with kitchen appliances. I would trust neither to keep a gold fish alive for a week without the intervention of personal assistants.

I want a debate moderated by a high school debate coach who cuts off clearly nonresponsive answers or rephrased questions and gives that time to the opponent if the opponent can addrress the question asked. I would watch that

The debates have never held much interest for me as debates as the participants are never held to account for not addressing the questions asked. Typically the participants start off with some variation of "what I hear you asking is..." They then rephrase the question beyond recognition and give a canned response, a nonresponse if you will. I may watch as a drinking game. Drink everytime Trump insults Biden with a juvenile name unfit for even a grade schooler in a name calling battle. I might also drink everytime Biden calls Trump "Jack", threatens to fight him, or goes into whisper mode and assures us his hyoperbole is a true story. the problem is I don't think I would get to the first commercial break. I just don't drink like I use to. I'm out of training.

For those of us with a micropenis an inch is as good as a mile.

When a statute is clear we don't get to the philosophies of an originalist. There are several authoritative treatises on statutory interpretation and none of them worry about feelings such as Sotomayor relied upon. You want what you want. You want an outcome so for you the end justifies the means, but when we operate under the rule of law that is a poor metric for reaching an end. The process is important, one might say imperative to prevent a dictatorship.

If I remeber correctly the NRA supported the 1986 legislation as they got some clarifications they wanted. Imagine that, 38 years ago the NRA did not knee jerk oppose firearms legislation.

I remember attending an outdoor fgun show in 1986 where Thompson had a booth set up trying to clear out their stock before the ban took effect. They let you test fire Thompsons. I did. It was fun in an Untouchables fantasy camp sort of way, but I did not purchase one as I have no use for such a weapon. There was also a company selling semiautomatic 10 gauge shotguns with an extended magazine. They let you fire that as well. I swear you could have taken down a barn with that thing. Again I did not purchase as who has need of such, excepting perhaps demolition companies. Also 10 gauge ammunition is not all that easy to come by, even then.

No it really doesn't, not under any form of recognized stautory interpretation. Feelings do n ot come into it when there is a specific definition. had congress passed a law that said in general no weapon or weapon system available to the general public shall be designed to have rates of fire over a certain limit, well then that general definition would encompass this. When they went to a more specific definition that specificity rules. In the end none of this matters if congress can get together on a new definition. The Democrats certainly would be willing to do so. As the bump stock ban was a Trump era matter it may be that there are some Republicans who would join in. Now some on the NRA right would oppose as democrats have scared them with their rhetoric, but it would only take a few republicans to join in to get this done.

Tribalism has always been with us and the recent trend was not created by Trump, just taken to a slightly new level, a level embraced by both sides of the political spectrum.

Nope. The dissent wants to legislate. That is not their job. Sotomayor may be a fine legislator where she elected to that job, but her job is to interpret the law, to read the law with a view to whether it is constitutional. In our tripartite system each branch needs to stay in their own lane. A law banning contraception is not a law banning back seats in cars simply because a Justice might feel back seats lead to conception and such a law, if passed by congress should not be read that way. Also, fully automatic weapons were banned in 1986 and that ban was not a complete ban, just a ban for those who did not register and qualify with the federal government, so 38 years ago, not 100.

I thought is was very nice of her to round him up gently and to guide him back to the matter at hand. She obviously is experienced at handling the old and mentally infirm.

Good for him, I suppose. I would hve a difficult time finding common ground with a woman 48 years younger than me. Once the sex was over I would likely not want them around until I was ready again. God forbid she started yapping. Stil, maybe tis one likes making sandwiches after. That wouuld be sweet!

BTW bump stocks are extremel;y inaccurate. Essentially they allow the weapon to move around in your hands which is no way to aim a gun. Also, without a bump stock a practiced shooter can create the same effect by the manner in which they hold their gun. Myself I choose not to do so as that rate of fire overheats barrels not designed for that rate of fire and that is bad.

Machine guns have a specific definition. They are defined by the cycling mechanism for firing. You pull and hold the trigger one time and the dischargerecoil cycles the firing mechanism cotninuously. Bump stocks do not work that way. With a bump stock one bullet is discharged for each pull of the trigger. The thing is the action of the stock allows the recoil of the gun to pull the trigger again and again. Functionally as far as bullets discharged there is not much difference. But bump stocks do not fit the definition of a prohibited, or more accurately a restricted, machine gun. The solution is simple. Amend the definition of a machine gun to one of firing rate regardless of the mechanism which produces the firing rate. It comes down to this. "Machine gun" is a well defined term of art. Judges, and justices don't get to change that definition because the feel like it, something Sotomayer wihes she could do. We would see the logic of not allowing feelings to dfetermine defined terms of art if, for instance, a Justice ferlt that EV's ought to fit into the definiton of a machine gun. We would say that is absurd. Things fit fdefinitons otr they do not, we don't add them in by judicial fiat if they seem close, we have the legislature broaden the definiton. Should the definiton of "machine gun" be broadened is the question you want to argue, not whether this decision was wrong, it was not. The policies and practices which grow from the decision may or may not be wrong for our society but the decision is sound adn Sotomayor reveals herself a dope on this ruling. Feelings are not law and she ought to know better.

https://youtu.be/BHUbNCjEMBE

I am a bit surprised Cuba has maintained its relationship with Russia. I fail to see that the average person in Cuba has benefitted from that relationship as opposed to the benefits they would get with a democracy and a productive relationship with the U.S.

It's not time to make a change Just relax, take it easy You're still young, that's your fault There's so much you have to know Find a girl, settle down If you want you can marry Look at me, I am old But I'm happy I was once like you are now And I know that it's not easy To be calm when you've found Something going on But take your time, think a lot Think of everything you've got For you will still be here tomorrow But your dreams may not

O.K. that is just wrong. And damn funny. Well done sir!

They call those shadows.