101 responses to “Shouldn’t you be in Canada by now?”

1. 

   Bill Tozer

   21 November 2016

   GaryS @3:18
   Former Labor Secretary and man of small stature Robert Reich could have saved time writing and just reposted this list. I like #13 on this list as well. #10 ain’t bad either. per link below.
   Looks like the opposition will go on for awhile. It’s already to roll out on a monent’s notice. 10,000 trained professional activists to oversee 2 million agitators. Name a cause and they will roll. Smells like Astro-Turf.
   http://nypost.com/2015/11/14/how-obama-is-bankrolling-a-non-stop-protest-against-invented-outrage/
   Yep, they have an action plan. The only thing they did not count on is they took such a annihilation of their senior management ranks they only have Chucky Schoomer left to roll out in front of the cameras.

   LikeLike

2. 

   Bill Tozer

   21 November 2016

   Gregory@ 3:41: The Trump Towering Inferno.
   Boy, I am a man of little faith. I got all worried sick when the Media Bigwigs and assorted soulless despicable hotshot news anchors of the MSM were invited to Trump Towers today. “Darn”, I thought, Trump is going to play nice with those who are drooling and ejactulating over the thought of pouring acid down his throat. But, I should have known. Trump is not a Washington politician. How siily of me. Oh me of little faith. Nevermind. Interesting times, indeed. That is change I can believe in.
   One thing that caught the Exuatled Members on the 4th Estate is they were given no trigger warning before the blowtorch burned their pretty faces and singled their hair.. Come to think of it, the reason we heard the wailing and gnashing of teeth from sea to shiny sea on Nov. 9th was because the nation was not given a trigger warning. We bad, so very un-PC. Mr. Trump, good move. Trigger warnings are not mandatory.

   LikeLike

3. 

   Bill Tozer

   21 November 2016

   Opps: forgot link. GARY SMITH:
   Here is the list R Reich could have copied, with # 10 and #13. My apologies.
   http://www.dcclothesline.com/2014/09/10/lefts-playbook-satanist-saul-alinskys-13-rules-political-warfare/

   LikeLike

4. 

   Scott Obermuller

   21 November 2016

   It just gets better and better. In this morning’s edition of ‘the newspaper of record’ for Idaho there was an article from the ‘extreme’ center of the road AP about the issue of electoral college delegates being pressured to change their vote. Of course they led with an example of a Trump delegate. The poor guy just can’t bring himself to actually cast his vote for Trump because he is – gasp – a “Christian”. Normally we would have the left waving their finger at us and telling us not to inject our religion into American politics or govt. Some how that doesn’t seem to be happening this time. Possibly an oversight. Who knows?
   Right? Anyhoo – it seems this “Christian” gentleman of the highest moral character has already pledged (on his honor) to vote for the Rep. candidate who wins the election. But now it seems he won’t do that because he ‘didn’t know’ Trump would be the candidate. Either having a high moral character isn’t what it used to be or the fact that he is just butt stupid remains to be seen.
   He has complained that some folks are a bit miffed at his refusal to honor his prior commitment and have issued vile threats in his general direction.
   Much later in the article, the authors admit that Trump delegates have been threatened for voting along – gasp – party lines. The headline and the first part of the article are completely misleading in intent.
   Keep it up ‘liars’ – and there will never be another Democrat in the White House.

   LikeLike

5. 

   ScenesFromTheApocalypse

   21 November 2016

   https://i.redd.it/frw9s5w9pzyx.jpg

   LikeLike

6. 

   Walt

   21 November 2016

   Now that the Proggies are a minority, you can hear the demands of affirmative action for the political class in their whining. ” We who are now in the minority, demand an equal say.”

   LikeLike

7. 

   Bill Tozer

   21 November 2016

   Now the good news. I hope the Dems go full bore balls to the wall Alt-Left. Looks like Chucky Schoomer has ten of his own up for reelection in 2018…….in red states! Maybe Trump will get some cooperation in the Senate….maybe 60 votes….on other things besides massive public works. Not Virginia!
   “And to make matters even bleaker for Senate Dems, some of the seats they do hold belong to states that voted for Trump over Hillary Clinton last week. Of the 25 Democratic senators up for re-election in 2018, 10 come from states where Trump won: solid red states Indiana, West Virginia, Missouri, Montana, and North Dakota, along with traditional swing states Michigan (still recorded as likely Trump until all votes are counted), Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, and Wisconsin—which all voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Tim Kaine also faces re-election in Virginia, a battleground state Clinton won only narrowly on Tuesday.”
   http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2016/11/14/democrats_unlikely_to_take_the_senate_in_2018_midterms.html

   LikeLike

8. 

   Scott Obermuller

   21 November 2016

   At 6:02 – we know it’s a phoney picture because she wouldn’t be holding a fire arm.

   LikeLike

9. 

   ScenesFromTheApocalypse

   22 November 2016

   “Now the good news. I hope the Dems go full bore balls to the wall Alt-Left.”
   Ctrl-Left

   LikeLike

10. 

    Paul Emery

    22 November 2016

    Yeah the Repubbers in Nevada |County are going to sing the same song as the Proggies nationally. They can read the same lyrics. Actually the Trumsters lost the popular vote nationally just like they did locally. Pretty funny for sure.

    LikeLike

11. 

    fish

    22 November 2016

    Actually the Trumsters (sic) lost the popular vote nationally just like they did locally.
    Be sure and let us know how that works out for ya Paul.

    LikeLike

12. 

    Todd Juvinall

    22 November 2016

    Yes it is funny. As a Constitutionalist it means they were pretty darn smart in the beginning. You are cracking me up with your vitriol. Never happy unless the pot growers get a pass. All the rest is blubber time. What a hoot. How is that vote for Johnson working out?

    LikeLike

13. 

    Paul Emery

    22 November 2016

    Todd
    Considering the fact that Californians voted strongly in support of recreational Marijuana (55-45%) what do you think the right thing for the Trump administration to do is? Do you favor States Rights ion this matter?

    LikeLike

14. 

    Paul Emery

    22 November 2016

    Todd
    I voted to support the Libertarian Party and not necessarily Johnson. By the way Todd have you ever checked out his record as Gov of New Mexico? Two terms with a budget surplus.

    LikeLike

15. 

    Walt

    22 November 2016

    Our Lefties sure are in need of a 12 step program. Paul has yet to deal with step two. It’s going to be a long few months.

    LikeLike

16. 

    Don Bessee

    22 November 2016

    PE- Say this three times while clicking your heels; President Hillary Rodham-Clinton. Did that help take you to where you wanted to be? Thought not. Its President Trump no matter what you whine about. 😉

    LikeLike

17. 

    Paul Emery

    22 November 2016

    Don I did not vote for Hillary. How many times do I have to repeat that.
    Let me ask you the same question that I posed to Todd for your comment. “Considering the fact that Californians voted strongly in support of recreational Marijuana (55-45%) what do you think the right thing for the Trump administration to do is? Do you favor States Rights ion this matter? ”
    As a Libertarian I am strongly in favor of states rights in this matter. Where do you stand?

    LikeLike

18. 

    Don Bessee

    22 November 2016

    Clicking your heals back to our last conversation PE? 😉

    LikeLike

19. 

    Todd Juvinall

    22 November 2016

    Yeswe Paul Emery, I am and have always been a majority States Rights man. The abuse of the Commerce Clause to let the EPA and all the other Federal Alphabets into the State has been my thing. And yes, I give as much support to the vote for ganga as you gave to Marriage Rights, Prop 8.

    LikeLike

20. 

    Paul Emery

    22 November 2016

    Todd
    AS a Libertarian I believe that the government has no business being in the marriage business, It is a right that cannot be decided by the ballot box. It is “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” as described in the Constitution.
    Also Todd locally the swamp is filled with those liberal critters again and what is your side going to do without the Sierra Lizzard to lead the charge in draining the swamp.

    LikeLike

21. 

    Gregory

    22 November 2016

    Paul, what about the government’s hand in what arms you choose for your own self defense?
    BTW, “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” is not a phrase to be found in the Constitution and has no force of law.

    LikeLike

22. 

    Todd Juvinall

    22 November 2016

    Marriage is between one man and one woman. Two men are a perversion and that is the way of nature.
    The swamp is filled with liberals. I agree. Now Mr. Trump will be draining the swamp and the people across America are rejecting liberalism.

    LikeLike

23. 

    Todd Juvinall

    22 November 2016

    Oh and my point destroyed your snark about state’s rights. Prop 8 was my destruction of your point and you lost. No defense.

    LikeLike

24. 

    Gregory

    22 November 2016

    Paul, should it be legal for a father to marry his daughter? Mother and son? … he sure knew who a boy’s best friend is… Brother and sister? Pan paniscus and Homo sapiens sapiens?
    It really isn’t so simple, is it?

    LikeLike

25. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2016

    Paul wants a homosexual married couple to be able to grow and sell ganga. Simple.

    LikeLike

26. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2016

    You got it Todd. You want a government that has the power to enter your bedroom and backyard at will to check out what you’re growing and your choice of companionship and personal commitment. That’s why I’m a Libertarian and your are a Republican.
    Correct Gregory not part of the Constitution, but is part of the Declaration of Independence and an expression of the yearning for freedom that led to the American Revolution. but is used in judicial decisions in questions of equality under the law. Do you believe that definition of marriage is a function of the Government and shopuld be enforceable under law ?
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

    LikeLike

27. 

    Bill Tozer

    23 November 2016

    Paul, a common mistake I have made in the past (my support for Alan Keyes for Prez as an example) was confusing the Declaration of Independence with the Constitution. To follow your agrument using only the DOI, there would be no age of consent.
    I once read a quote in The Union from a former unnamed mayor of Nevada City during the leadup to Obamacare. She said basically (my paraphrase) affordable healthcare is a right because having healthcare is part of her pursuit of happiness.
    ——Todd @ 8:05 AM. A homosexual married couple can now grow and smoke ganja legally. but selling pot is a horse of a different color. What you say about Paul’s wants is undoubtedly true, but selling herb is different than growing or smoking it. May be a States Rights issue or even one’s pursuit of happiness, but the IRS (Feds) has an insatiable appetite. Heck, all government has an unsatisble appetite. Selling ganja? Is that in the new recreational dope law? I have not read our new laws because I have the right not to. 🙂

    LikeLike

28. 

    Gregory

    23 November 2016

    Paul, the Declaration of Independence was just that, a big F-U to King George V, along with the reasons why. It has no status in law and even before gay marriage courtesy a SCOTUS ruling, people were free to call themselves married if that’s how they felt and I had no problem asking lesbian friends, “How’s the wife?”. “Marriage equality” was primarily about money and rubbing the noses of Evangelicals into the dirt. Social Security benefits and government pensions, tax issues, etc. Forcing some Evangelical schmucks running a small bakery out of business because they didn’t want to bake a gay wedding cake? Really?
    As an aside, I heartily recommend reading the Cliff’s Notes Jefferson used while drafting the Declaration, John Locke’s 2nd Treatise on Government, one of the best things I was ever forced to read in college, right up there with the Halliday & Resnick Physics and “Medieval Technology and Social Change” by White.
    In California, civil unions provided all civil legal benefits possible, except for Federal money and coercing 3rd parties to conform. Back in the ’90’s I worked for a company that gave full spousal benefits to same sex partners, requiring Civil Union status after that became available and had zero tolerance for workplace intolerance over just about everything. Why? It got in the way of making money for all of us.
    Since you’re such a Born Again State’s Rights advocate, Paul, why wouldn’t Marriage be up to the states, which was pretty much the case at the time of the SCOTUS ruling?
    Now, this is all a moot point since the SCOTUS has ruled… but while a 5/4 court after the first Trump appointment wouldn’t find anything different, a 6/3 or 7/2 majority Scalian court might revise this and other issues. Like Roe v. Wade.

    LikeLike

29. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2016

    Oh Paul Emery, you always are over the top. OK using your philosophy there is no right for the government to come into your house if you are abusing a child. Can’t have that. We are a nation of laws and we all have opinions. You win some and lose some. But 5,000 years of marriage tossed by secular people is not right. You just saw a popular backlash on November 8.

    LikeLike

30. 

    Bill Tozer

    23 November 2016

    This is how I remember the gay marriage debate.
    Seems few if any opposed civil unions with the full rights afforded “married” couples. Adoption was a sticking point and perhaps it still is in the public’s eye in some quarters, including some gay pundits. The problems that arose from not being legally married (or not having full civil union protections) arose in access to hospital ICU wards that allowed only next of kin in to see the patient, dissolution of property after death, family coverage of healthcare insurance provided by an employer, etc.
    The real debate was over the definition of the word marriage. The tradition meaning of the word since man took a woman to be his “wife” and woman chose a man to be her “husband”. That was the real sticking point of the debate over gay marriage. Not the legal stuff and afforded protections, but the very definition of the word English word marriage. That became the poke you in the eye stuff. Redefine a word or meaning and poke them Christians in the eye.
    Like an enormous amount of laws enacted in civilized society, there are some things we all have to tolerate, but we don’t have to condoneq. I always felt that changing laws never changes hearts. That is why the PC mantra is doomed to create a backlash. Pushing to hard. Knife cuts both ways.

    LikeLike

31. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2016

    So Bill you believe that laws should be passed to protect the definition of certain words to be consistent with Christian Judea traditions?

    LikeLike

32. 

    George Rebane

    23 November 2016

    re BillT 1019am – My two cents –
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2013/03/marriage-by-any-other-name.html

    LikeLike

33. 

    Gregory

    23 November 2016

    So Paul, you believe that laws should be passed to make room for Sharia law under the Constitution?
    I’m not sure dropping gays head first off of roofs can be accommodated.

    LikeLike

34. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2016

    Gregory
    tat was a very clumsy effort to change the subject.

    LikeLike

35. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2016

    My point has flusterated (my new word) Paul Emery. He is all in for ganga state’s rights but not homosexual marriage being usurped by the Feds. So which is Paul? Prop 8 was voted in by our state’s [people?

    LikeLike

36. 

    Don Bessee

    23 November 2016

    Tit for tat PE? 😉

    LikeLike

37. 

    Gregory

    23 November 2016

    Paule 1056, “tat” was a fine effort to blunt your effort to change the subject.
    Marriage exists because of reproductive biology and “Judeo-Christian” is just one tradition that honors that relationship, with the oldest known family burial being this stone age family killed nearly 5,000 years ago.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081117-stone-age-family.html
    Marriage is the only word I know of that encapsulates the relationship succinctly.

    LikeLike

38. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2016

    So Gregory if reproductive biology is the criteria for defining the word marriage should there be another word for couples getting married who are beyond the age of child bearing?

    LikeLike

39. 

    Don Bessee

    23 November 2016

    Viagra?

    LikeLike

40. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2016

    Paul Emery is in to his dopey questions again. My goodness the man is really out there.
    Answer Gregory’s question Paul Emery. Is it OK for a man to marry his sister or his mother under your definitions?

    LikeLike

41. 

    Bill Tozer

    23 November 2016

    Paul @ 10:37 AM. No, just saying the Left is always changing the historical and cultural meaning of a word or words to fit their purposes. I would hazard to guess we both believe there are too many laws and ordinances and regulations with the force of law already on the books. With that disclaimer out of the way, I believe the man on the street for the last thousand years defined the word “marriage” was the union of man (husband) and woman (wife). That includes bigamy.
    It is the Left that passes laws to turn asunder the definition of words as commonly accepted and understood to redefine the terms of the argument.
    While I am at it, here is a pet peeve of mine due to recent events. Take the word violence. The current PC trend is to take violence from an understood and accepted physical act to equating violence with the spoken word. One and the same now. Yes, we know the phrase “inciting violence” may or may not be a physical activity in and of itself, but that is akin to 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree murder and involuntary manslaughter. Those are legal terms to clarify the meaning of “taking another’s life.”
    That is not what I am taking about. It is taking my spoken word directed to a specific listener on our campuses (add gov’t and the workplace) and calling it violence. That bothers me because it is a dangerous trend, IMHO.
    I have pondered this rapidly growing trend of skewing commonly accepted definitions of words that is spreading like gangrene across America in the context of Free Speech and various aspects our 1st Amendment. I wondered how we got to the place where someone merely writing the word “Trump” in chalk on campus steps is considered a threat, hateful, violence, and a host of other bad socially unacceptable things. Then it hit me. The only way to usurp the 1st Amendment and enforce group think as law (not to mention making contrary opinions illegal via enforcement) is through Title IX.
    Yes, we need protections of minority rights. But we do not need laws such as Title IX that can suppress minority viewpoints and become tyrannical . Just saying perhaps it’s time to revisit Title IX and make sure it does not supersede our inalienable rights…..me thinks it can’t hurt to keep Title IX from casting too dark of a shadow and blocking out the sunlight. Just my opinion…

    LikeLike

42. 

    George Rebane

    23 November 2016

    The correct (and precise) definition of words has been a determined fetish on these pages form since their inception.
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2016/09/tongue-tied-in-america.html
    http://rebaneruminations.typepad.com/rebanes_ruminations/2007/12/when-you-own-th.html

    LikeLike

43. 

    Bill Tozer

    23 November 2016

    Doc:
    But what does a green letter seven taste like? :). Happy Thanksgiving Dr. Rebane. 2016 gave us much to talk about and much to be thankful for. We dodged a bullet which is on my gratitude list.

    LikeLike

44. 

    Paul Emery

    23 November 2016

    Tozer and George
    Can you show me what constitutional authority gives the government the task of defining words?

    LikeLike

45. 

    Gregory

    23 November 2016

    “So Gregory if reproductive biology is the criteria for defining the word marriage should there be another word for couples getting married who are beyond the age of child bearing?” PE 1ish
    Paul, let me help you with your critical reading skills… what I wrote was

    Marriage exists because of reproductive biology and “Judeo-Christian” is just one tradition that honors that relationship, with the oldest known family burial being this stone age family killed nearly 5,000 years ago.
    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/11/081117-stone-age-family.html
    Marriage is the only word I know of that encapsulates the relationship succinctly.

    If you are trying to make the case that marriage exists because of some force besides reproductive biology, please make that case. In fact it is also the case that Loving v. Virginia came down on the side of “it ain’t the government’s business” BECAUSE of reproductive biology, not the fun parts you prefer your partner to have and the fun parts your partner prefers you to have.

    LikeLike

46. 

    Gregory

    23 November 2016

    PE 549
    Just how do you think laws can be written without great specificity as to the meanings of key words as taken or intended by a legislature? Especially when you have Bubba the attorney answering under oath that it depends on what the meaning of “is” is.

    LikeLike

47. 

    Todd Juvinall

    23 November 2016

    I suggest PE look at his insurance policies. The first few ages are what the words mean. That is how it is done. Look at the County General Plan, same thing. Every word is given a meaning and voted on. Tedious but necessary as we see Paul’s confusion. Yje Constitution gives the legislature broad powers to make law and definitions are part of that power.

    LikeLike

48. 

    Bill Tozer

    23 November 2016

    Hi Paul. No authority I know except when the courts struggle over words like obscene. Like the Supreme Court said, you know it when you see it. Can you cite what authority government has to change a definition of any word?
    This is one man’s opinion. Government does not make laws defining individual words. Culture and language does the definition thang. Simple.
    Oh, forgot the friggin’ disclaimer. The FCC indeed issues a list of banned words defined as naughty that ain’t supposed to be uttered over the airwaves. Even NCTV can’t run spanky movies at 3:AM, a prank that has happened on Community Access Television as well as commercial broadcasts….one went 6 hours on a news station in Houston (I believe) and nobody called in to complain, but I digress. 🙂
    My new interest is currently trying to disprove the theory that “politics is downstream of culture.” Or as Mr. Savage told Trump in 2011, anyone who runs on language, culture, and borders would win. It’s what makes us Americans, the ties that bind.
    Lawyers haggle over the meaning of words and their nuances . They pull these words out of existing languages such as Latin and English, The English words are found in a thing called an English Dictionary whose words have been developed after centuries of the influences of cultures. Or, the just replace the English word for marriage with the Arabic or Islamic or Greek or Latin or Chinese word for marriage. Better now?

    LikeLike

49. 

    George Rebane

    23 November 2016

    PaulE 549pm – OK, as soon as you show me where I made such an assertion. Now that doesn’t mean that I don’t promote the precise definition of words – especially in laws, contracts, and agreements – that can be supplied ad hoc by whoever is party to such codicils.

    LikeLike

50. 

    Bill Tozer

    23 November 2016

    Shouldn’t you be in California by now?
    Start at the middle of page 2. For Russ
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/patrickgleason/2016/11/23/calexit-means-american-taxpayers-wont-have-to-bailout-californias-ticking-pension-time-bomb/#668bf55a9c65

    LikeLike