Lord of the Dunes

HBD Wes! 

14 minutes ago, Cookie said:

I do not think Biden is doing a good job, not sure how anyone can think that.  Whatever party puts out a middle of the ground competent person will win the election.  If both candidates are polarizing, who knows.  Trump needs to step aside and let someone younger and more polished take the reigns.  And with all the court proceedings he needs to go thru, just doesn't make sense for the GOP to embrace him either.   But then you could be right, Biden still has two more years to really Fuuck things up.

We both agree that Biden is a nightmare for this country and also that even those who voted for him are probably regretting it now. I personally wasn't bothered by Trump's Tweets and interviews, but unfortunately a large portion of our population are snowflakes and cannot tell the difference between what a person says and what they do. This is also why we, as a nation, always fall for the biggest lying POS and elect him to office, rather than those who really want to do what's best for the country.

Ronald Reagan is a prime example of someone who was a better actor than President. The majority of the public still think of him as a great POTUS, but he bears a huge portion of the blame for the Wall St collapse of 2008. He pushed for and signed laws deregulating the banking industry, mistakenly thinking that bankers would do what's best for the economy, the country. Sadly, he completely underestimated their level of greed and sociopathic tendencies which led them to go from 4:1 leverage ratios (by law) to up to 100:1, which overextended them and forced them into bankruptcy and the near collapse of the world economy. When faced with the choice of giving themselves bonuses for creating and selling CDSs and derivatives and buying a 3rd house in the Hamptons or exercising fiduciary responsibility and safely protecting the retirement accounts of millions of people, they chose the house in the Hamptons and said, "screw all of the little people." The fact that he bowed to their pressure and didn't see who they really were caused us all to pay for it.

As for 2024, you're right, most people want someone more middle of the road and more charismatic. If they don't find that guy or gal, I'll vote for Trump again over any creature, regardless of gender or pronoun, coming from the left. I am categorically opposed to their entire platform of open borders, first grade teachers coercing kids into transgender roles, raise more taxes then waste the money on people who are illegal or don't work, their increasing socialism, etc, all of it.

Although the Dumbocrats claim to be the party of the people, the top 1% got wealthier, faster under Obama than at any time previous. Who knows if there will ever be a middle class again.

21 hours ago, Crusty said:

Do you make choices, or do choices make you.

Been thinking on this allot this weekend. How it affects my family, our path, etc.

 

People always make choices. Life, or the universe, happens. You have no control over it. All you can control is how you react to it. You can't control other people, unless you're a judge. 

This goes hand in hand with part of the AA saying about "God, grant me the serenity. To accept the things I cannot change; Courage to change the things I can; and wisdom to know the difference. 

While I'm not in AA, the simple logic of that saying appeals to me. Some people do get handed lemons in life, but how they handle it determines their course through life. When some black leader points to environmental issues and whines about systemic racism and generational wealth, I point out all of the black multibillionaires, multimillionaires, millionaires and mention that they must have all grown up in Beverly Hills.

Self awareness goes a long way toward understanding why we make the choices we make.          

8 minutes ago, Cookie said:

Just going to put this out there, If Trump runs, Democrats will get another 4 years.  Trumps days are done and if he runs as an Independent, he will split the conservative votes.  Trump polarized the masses, he did this himself.  We can blame the Democrat's, but in the end he bullied everyone, even the people he hired.

As who the Democrat's will put out there to run??  Could be Biden again, doubt it.  Harris isn't making friends, maybe Hillary.

For some reason I thing Romney isn't done.  I do think DeSantis has a chance, but in the end, both sides need to find someone that is more middle to get all the votes.

Do you feel that Biden is doing a good job? Do you feel that the rest of the nation will vote Dumbocrat after 4 yrs of his hyper inflation, continued crazy aggression from Russia and probably similar aggression from China taking over Taiwan and North Korea getting froggy as well since they can smell senility from 1,000 mi away? Between now and 2024, I think Biden is going to make us miss the good old days of right now. Inflation screws us all, including the morons who voted him in. I'm hoping they're smart enough (just above caterpillar intellect) to realize they focked up in 2020 and they won't repeat that mistake. Apparently, a lot of voters base their choice on "no more of this clown/political party, let's try the other guy."

If the GOP doesn't come up with a better option than Trump, I'm thinking the easily swayed middle ground people might suck it up and vote Trump. 

Happy Birthday Joe! I'm still in FB jail, so since I couldn't wish you a HBD there, I started this so I could do it here.

Have a great weekend!

No president is perfect, I judge them all on a scale from "not as bad as the others" to "the stupidest, most worthless, feeble, senile old meat puppet they could have possibly installed as POTUS."

For those who didn't like Trump's Tweets, I can understand it and I generally dismiss those most offended as snowflakes who can't handle anything they don't like to hear. I paid attention to what he actually did and I'm not on Twitter at all. However, based on the fallout, him melting snowflakes with a blowtorch just seemed like extra icing on the cake.

AFAIK, the entire system is corrupt on both sides due to career politicians holding themselves above the law, doing what corporate lobbyists tell them to do and forgetting their job is it do as we wish, not curry favor with the rich to stay in power. That was part of Trump's appeal, he was already rich, he didn't owe anyone anything and both sides of the swamp hated him equally. That told me he was doing a good job - when the average Joe loves you and the swamp wants you gone.

Trump isn't perfect by a long shot, he's definitely rough around the edges, but is there a better choice out there who will do what he says and not play the usual political games that accomplish nothing? Look at the SCOTUS decision. Why do they want to overturn Roe v Wade? Because Trump saw the need to stack the court in our favor nd he did so, despite massive howling from the left. Look how hard they attacked all of his picks for SCOTUS. Now look how the SC is starting to rule on issues. Would a less aggressive POTUS have accomplished that and set us up for the future that well? I don't think so.

If they can come up with an equally dedicated candidate who is more charismatic, I'm all for it.

I haven't been down there in over 20 yrs, but we did have a great time! We planned on getting a bunch of free vouchers from the time share sales companies. When we landed, we were swamped with guys trying to get us to go to their sales pitch, so we got them into a bidding war, which one offered the most. We settled on one and made a breakfast appt. I was scarfing down a great breakfast and guzzling XX one after the other and telling them how awesome the timeshare was. Then at the end, we told them we were $70k in debt from the wedding and honeymoon, sorry, but we'll take all of the freebies you promised.

We got a half day fishing trip, got 13 nice fish and took them back to our hotel, the cooks fileted and froze them for us. We got a 1/2 day jet ski rental for 2 jet skis, we got a free booze cruise around the harbor, which was fun. 

Before we went down there, we were told to bring an ice chest with wheels if we wanted to fish, so we did. It came in very handy to haul the fish from the pier back to our hotel. At the hotel, the cooks used our ice chest to store our fish in the freezer and they packed it with free ice the day we left, so when we got home, the ice was still frozen.

Just a few ideas for activities in case any of them appeal to you. We also did a lot of drinking and dancing in nightclubs every night, but I think that's pretty standard.

3 hours ago, BaBaBouy said:

I’m a fan of abortion, I’d like to see it expanded to include retro-abortion up to the age of 30. Think of it as a warranty or “free trial” clause for parents. Piece

Agreed. I think we should start with voter records, anybody who voted for Biden.

I met a guy in the Navy who had 5 children with 3 women. He refused to pay child support, so the judge told him to join the military or go straight to jail. He chose the Navy. I had heard rumors of that happening decades ago, but I didn't think it was still happening in 1993. He complained that after they took most of his check for child support, he couldn't afford to go out and hook up with more women, so I nicknamed him G-Money.   

20 minutes ago, TheLatinLover said:

…and according to the interwebs, Trump and Covid are a threat to your way of life. 
 

 

You need to stay off of those libtard sites, they'll warp yore brain.

I'd be worried if I was only 4'11" tall. Even jr high kids would be a major threat.

Somebody doesn't like house flippers.

1 hour ago, Sausage450r said:

So if my wife wants an abortion i have no say if she wants to kill my child?

I don't think she should. It takes two to tango, and the law makes the biological father financially liable for that child, whether he's married to her or not. He should have some say in it. I'm not saying a man should be able to force her to have an abortion, but if he does want the child, she should give birth and allow him to raise it if they're not a couple. That's one of the inequities of our system, forcing men to support a woman for 18 yrs just because he got her pregnant. Rarely does it cost as much to raise a kid as women demand for child support. If that money went only to supporting the child, there'd be enough left over for a nice college fund.

1 hour ago, THD said:

 

I agree mostly.

The 2nd amendment covers your first example. 

On the basic health care issue, I'll point out a conversation I had with my daughter about this. We were talking about how the government is inefficient and inept which she agreed with. Then she stated she wanted universal basic healthcare. My response was "who's going to run that?". She just stared back at me with no response. There are other ways of dealing with this.

Absolutely!

I read an article on a cruising forum written by a couple who used to live in San Diego. They had a baby here and it cost $10,000 for prenatal and post natal care. A couple of yrs later, they moved their boat to Ensenada and had a baby there and it cost them only $300 for the same care down there. They said the equipment used in both hospitals were the same, but they felt they got more personalized care in MX since every time they went in for a checkup and for childbirth, they saw the same Dr and nurses. Their theory (and I agree) was that the major difference in cost was the cost of drugs (much higher here), the added cost of malpractice ins. here, and the added cost of HMO fees, which do nothing to provide healthcare. These are all areas where the MX gov't protects it's citizens, but our gov't doesn't. As much as I like to think that the MX gov't is corrupt, the reality is our gov't is probably far more corrupt systemically and allows us to routinely get raped by HMOs, big Pharma and the whole malpractice industry via the lobbyists who actually write the laws.

34 minutes ago, Crusty said:

@Lord of the Dunes

Healthcare Coverage for Transgender is an issue in some states like Alabama, this case has the potential for laws to change.

https://www.aclu.org/cases/walker-et-al-v-marshall-et-al

Align it up with where Abortion might be heading.....should it be necessary to move to a state that has laws that support your way of life?

 

It boggles my mind that we let certain basic rights (2nd A) get chipped away at in States like CA over time. It's sad actually. Why should I have to move to a crappy state?

When the gov't starts trying to legislate medical procedures or medical care, it gets really sticky. Personally, I think we should all have the freedom to do as we please, as long as it doesn't affect other people. So I don't think it's any of my business, or anyone else's business (especially the gov't) whether someone wants to change genders, get a boob job or have an abortion. At the same time, I shouldn't be forced to pay for any of it. It's a personal decision and thus a personal expense. As far as trans athletes are concerned, their genetics should determine the gender they should compete in. If they have YY = women's sports, XY = men's sports. That seems pretty simple to me.

Back to the case you mentioned - no state should have those type of laws on the books. That supports my position that most laws should be federal, so people don't get forced to move or go to another state to get the medical assistance they want/need.

2 hours ago, Crusty said:

Ethical standards do not remain fixed; they transform in response to evolving situations. Over time, people change, technology advances, and cultural mores (i.e., acquired culture and manners) shift.

Think of Slavery as a simple, recent example.

Life is not black and white, people are excitable, messy and miserable creatures filled with complex emotions unlike any other creature on earth.

You state Technological advance are ok to change laws, how is that different then folks who change their minds on what is socially expectable? It's still folks that create the technology anyways...still have people to blame LOL

What laws should be changed? Do you see a time in the future when murder will be legal? How about libel and defamation of character? Since CNN and MSNBC already make a mockery of the truth, should we just dispense with those laws so people can't sue them for lying?

I'm not going to cover every possible scenario, but I think there are certain fundamental laws (based on the 10 commandments plus some) which should never be deleted. They're based on ethics, morals, fundamental right and wrong. If some unscrupulous banker steals the title to someone's home, to me that's straight up theft. Yet in many states, it happens and the local DA doesn't have any specific law on the books against it. In that case, the law should be added to protect innocent people from losing their houses after paying it off after 30 yrs. 

I agree with you, slavery laws changed and IMHO slavery should have never started, but it was long before my time. Aside from that excellent example, it seems we're now at a point where basic right and wrong has been fairly well codified.

Do you have an example of a current law on the books that you could see getting removed in the future due to changes in societal opinions?

1 hour ago, THD said:

Be careful what you wish for. We are a Republic which gives the states the power to govern and pass laws for their constituency as long as it doesn't infringe on the Constitution. If you allow the Federal Gov the power to institute laws at the local level, it will take away states rights to self govern.

The leaked draft does not indicate a ban on abortion, it indicates that it is a states right to pass laws in regards to abortion. Abortion is not a right granted in the constitution is what I am gleaning from the discussion of what the draft says. Thus, it is a states right to determine how abortion will be handled in their state. But the left will label this a ban on abortion.

Think about all the laws in the states we live in. Would you want these laws to be federalized and binding on half the country that think they are ludicrous? There are bizarre laws on the books in your state and mine that at least half the states would not even imagine instituting. Think about the mess around vaccine mandates. Imagine the Federal government having the power and authority to mandate the jab nationwide, which the Biden admin tried to do but repeatedly was shot down by courts. And so much for my body my choice which only applies to what the Dems/elites decide.

I am not an expert on constitutional law, so this is just an opinion I put out there for discussion.

I agree, there are a lot of ridiculous laws in various states, like you can't walk your peacock backwards on the sidewalk during daylight hours.

It's high time all of the ridiculous state laws get stricken from the books. I'm all for fewer laws, especially federal laws. But what good does it do society if abortion is legal in CA but not in AZ? Women who want abortions will drive from AZ to CA just to get an abortion. So did the AZ law actually do any good? It just forced them to spend an extra $200 (at projected $10/gal for gas) and drive 400 or 500 mi to get an abortion.

I personally think it's a woman's choice if she wants the procedure and the father should have the option to veto it and keep the child if he chooses.

We currently have a system where we have state and federal laws. If the DA loses their case, they can get vindictive and ask the USA to charge you with a federal crime with the same charge. That circumvents the entire "double jeopardy" principle. We should strike the major laws, like murder, abortion, embezzling, etc from the state books and just have more specific laws on  the state or local books, like fishing laws, zoning laws, etc. There's no practical reason to have federal laws governing murder and 50 other versions of the same law in the individual states.

As far as Biden and  the jab, I've maintained all along that he had NO right to mandate any medical procedures on anyone. Even the 4th amendment could be applied to this, since it states, "The right of the people to be secure in their persons," which at the very basic terms means the gov't has no right to use anyone in an experiment against their will. There's a good reason Dr. Mengele was considered a monster. If we had a federal law on the books specifically prohibiting the gov't from such medical experiments or unwanted medical procedures, Biden probably would have been stopped from even bringing it up, much less actually trying it.   

In short, this could be a chance to reduce the number of laws on the states' books by a huge amount. It's not a request for more laws.

8 minutes ago, Crusty said:

Isn't the best version of any law when both sides are equally pissed off?

I don't know why anything was necessary for any change.

An abortion was legal with some guidelines, why are we moving that line in either direction?

 

This is just opening a cluster eff of a mess to get people all riled up.

#UnbornLivesMatter

#MyBodyMyChoice

Neither side should be happy, because both sides want everything and to deny the other side anything.

The best version of a law is when morality and ethics are upheld. Laws that anger both sides do nothing but anger both sides, they are unjust if everyone is angry. Making murder illegal, for example, shouldn't piss anyone off.

This particular topic is fraught with emotion for a lot of people, but emotion shouldn't be a factor in law making. I also feel having court decisions determine future laws is stupid and dangerous. You end up with what we have here: constant re-interpretation of the law. The law should remain as a constant. If embezzlement is illegal in 1900, it should still be illegal now and for all time. The only reason to change laws is if they were poorly written, unjust or technology advances (like the internet) and it needs to be updated to cover new types of crimes.

2 hours ago, Rockwood said:

Good riddance.  Sweeping federal statutes help no one, especially something as emotionally charged as this.

Amusingly, this doesn't mean abortions are illegal, just that states get to decide.  The majority of Americans believe there should be limitations on abortion, not the current carte-blanche disaster we have now.

I don't understand your logic here. Shouldn't major laws, like abortion or murder, be the same nationwide? I think one of the major injustices in this world is to see someone get prosecuted for something in one state that is still legal in another state. If the law isn't uniform throughout the land, then it seems pretty arbitrary. In other words, if something is fundamentally wrong, it must be wrong everywhere, not just 5 feet over the state line.

Wow! That's fantastic! Happy Anniversary!

Went to the 38th Ramona VFW Pig Roast to video the band. The food was amazing, all the booze you can drink and the bartenders were great. The band sounded fantastic and played awesome classic rock. There was a huge crowd dancing from 6pm to 10pm in front of my buddy's custom built mobile soundstage trailer.

I rigged up 3 cameras and it looks like the video came out great, when it's all edited he's going to put it on his website to advertise the band. A lot of families there were 3 generations; teens, parents and grandparents!

I'm seeing a business opportunity here.

Merchant gets ripped off, bank rubs salt in the wound, so the merchant calls an 800#, gives the address and amount he got stiffed for. The company that owns the 800# sends a local guy to visit the ripoff artist and he assists the ripoff artist in handing over the merchandise or the cash, merchant's preference. Then he performs an emergency knee realignment to help sh1tbag's vision improve and help him see the error of his ways. Then the knee specialist keeps 15 or 20% for his efforts.

This way no matter where the sh1tbag lives, merchants have a way to reach out and touch them and get most of their money back. 

Man that sucks! Too bad you didn't have a wireless driveway alarm or security cameras! It would have been satisfying to catch the thieves!

Hindsight is 20/20.

If you have beer, I can test it to make sure it's cold.

51 minutes ago, Intro2Rhino said:

How do electric powered rigs fair up with water crossings. Any e-jeep owners 

There is a company that rebuilds Teslas and when they see a car after it's been flooded, they measure the waterline. If it's above a certain level, they know that water has entered the system and they won't try to revive it. They might use it for parts for collision repair, but the most expensive parts are too expensive to replace or try to repair. I imagine an off road vehicle would be designed to be water resistant, but that doesn't mean it can maintain that water resistant integrity after getting driven hard off road.