Recent Comments

1. about 21 hours ago on Non Sequitur

   “Fauxcahontas? Identifies herself as “American Indian” when there is one individual at least 6 generations back, and maybe 10?”

   Maybe I misunderstood something? Since the rest of your screed is just extremely discourteous insults, I tackled this one claim. In fact, your accusation is pointless. AOC IS part Amerind, regardless of how “diluted” you consider it to be, as are most people of Puerto Rican heritage.

   Beyond that, your assertion that she “claims to be” seems to be based upon a single reference: Ocasio-Cortez has said that “to be Puerto Rican is to be the descendant of … African Moors [and] slaves, Taino Indians, Spanish colonizers, Jewish refugees, and likely others. We are all of these things … .”

   Since her assertion is entirely correct, somehow I fail to see that there is any valid point in your very impolite summary statement concerning her character. Could you please be more enlightening concerning references about her claimed dishonesty?

   FULL DISCLOSURE: I do not necessarily agree with AOC’s political views, although I do understand some of them and accept their basic validity.

   Now, if you really wanted to comment on an intrinsically dishonest person, I’d be happy to debate with you about Trump’s qualifications for such a label.

2. about 23 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   Oh, BTW, just for a little humor:

   “I was never really interested in hunting myself.”

   Neither was I. I never could see the sense of hunting myself. I always have known where I was and didn’t need to find myself.

3. about 23 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   “I never saw him use it and he never taught me or my siblings to use a gun.”

   Out of respect for society at large, I taught both of my kids how to use firearms. That included lessons in safe handling, how to check for safety engaged, how to disable a firearm, range safety, and so on.

   My training also included a simple example of why firearms are NOT toys. I set up a small orange pumpkin about the size of a Human’s head as a target. Then I had them stand off at 15 feet with my .32 revolver and shoot at it. When hit, the pumpkin explodes, about like a Human head does. That made its point.

   “I was never really interested in hunting myself.”

   I was. Until I turned 9 yo, and a cousin took me hunting. Another hunter, incensed that I was on his deer stand, shot at me with a 30-06 rifle, hit the 1-foot dia pine tree against which I was leaning. Blew a hole 1" dia going in, and 8" coming out. Also blew in my right eardrum from the sonic crack. I promptly lost all interest in hunting, for years. I still don’t hunt, in the classic sense. I dispatch destructive rodents and predators, but nothing else, and definitely not for the “thrill” of it, for boasting rights, or to collect trophies.

4. about 23 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   “… they are not military grade but stylized to look like a military weapon but only fire 1 bullet with each trigger pull”

   When that “stylization” is an exact imitation of a military weapon, equipped with the same (or larger) capacity magazine, the difference is quite negligible. Hand me ANY such rapid-fire weapon, and I can lay down shots to at least a 100 round per minute (rpm) rate. In one minute, using 20-round magazines, I will get off at least 60 rounds in that single minute.

   The people who wrote the 2nd Amendment never in their wildest dreams envisioned such a gunfire capability from a single weapon, and would not now agree that such weapons in the hands of ordinary citizens are either necessary or proper. You know this, but want to split hairs to try and justify the idea that our government has no right to limit ANY level of firearms.

   And kits are available (like “bump stocks”) to alter those into single-pull continuous-fire weapons. We all know this.

   It’s like sitting a child up on a booster seat behind the wheel of a high-powered truck. “Oh, he can’t hurt himself or anyone else. See, I have the key!” But can (s)he learn to hotwire? Can (s)he steal your spouse’s (or your) key? Can (s)he take it out of gear and let it roll down the driveway and into the street … and maybe through stop sighs or lights?

   Meanwhile, the killings and maiming using rapid-fire weapons go on … and on … and on. What is the line that has to be crossed to get people upset enough to demand an end to unlimited ownership of such weapons? Does it have to be your spouse, your child, your parent? Would even that change your (and others’) mind?

5. about 23 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   What dates of mayor reports are you checking? Not arguing, I’m just asking.

   Also, I’m just mentioning that it is entirely possible for a city to have a mayor of one party and a council that disagrees with him or her. If that mayor can not get the needed majority vote, his leadership on specific matters will not result (in his/her view) in satisfactory council decisions.

   And to the contrary, most city governments permit that after the council secretary introduces an issue for discussion, any council member can immediately “call the vote” without the mayor even having a chance to speak about it. So the presumption that a city is “run” by the politics of its mayor seems to be faulty.

6. about 24 hours ago on Pearls Before Swine

   You missed the word play:

   “Mr. Pig”, as in “Mr. Tibbs”.

7. about 24 hours ago on Mike du Jour

   “Answer: Because only one side has practiced it.”

   Wrong answer to the wrong question.

   Correct question: Who has been convicted and why were those charges brought?

   Correct answer: Because the person charged committed a crime.

   “Only one side has resorted to calling its political opponent a “convicted felon.”

   This is because only one side’s politician committed crimes of a value and nature to cause the justice system to charge them with those crimes, bring them into court, and convict them.

   Trump was charged regarding 34 counts of felony. He was found guilty of all 34 counts by unanimous decisions of the jury. That jury was formed of people from BOTH major political parties. If any one of them, for whatever reason, had disagreed with the evidence presented, or even with their instructions before beginning deliberation, they could have voted not to convict on that specific count.

   They did not do so. Therefore, it is not dismissible on the concept of being lawfare. He was guilty, as charged. He was tried and convicted in a court of law, and sentenced by the judge. He has NO valid appeal. Of course that won’t stop Trump from trying to ram it up to his packed Supreme Court. And even if the SC turns him down, Trump still will try to use lawfare to wreck the lives of those he perceives, in his megalomania, have “wronged” him.

   This is exactly why Biden issued all those preemptive pardons for political figures and his family. Perhaps the SC will refuse to overturn Biden’s pardons … on the basis that if they overturn those, equity would require them also to overturn Trump’s pardons of the 06 Jan rioters … and to overturn the dismissals of all his other felony cases. After all, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, isn’t it?

8. 1 day ago on Non Sequitur

   Well, only for the first batch or two. After that, the residents can make their own.

9. 1 day ago on Non Sequitur

   For some people.

10. 1 day ago on Non Sequitur

    Besides, all the best answers already have been discovered and are in books … or available through the Internet. If they’re in a book, we’ll just program AI to scan the the Net for digitized versions, collect them, and display them. THEN we can work backward to show how we got that answer.

    After all, isn’t that what our Prez and his toadies are doing? So it MUSK be correct! /S

    Of course, that ignores what happens in her math class when the teacher points out that her attempts at cheating about honestly doing the work have resulted in an answer that is incorrect for the problem that was posed.