Jump to content

US Politics: Ted Cruz - A Tale of two Snowflakes


A Horse Named Stranger

Recommended Posts

She got two and bred them on her rural property and everyone was happy about it. She also interviewed people who wanted them( she was not out for money) She had some war trauma, so liked the protection...naturally better than a gun, but they had those as well. ( stored safely) someone I know had to make sure that he was not at the bottom of the pecking order. Skills are required.

There is a thing called hybrid vigor. It is health due to outbreeding. But yah a husky mix, I can say, might kill cats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My dog came from a shelter. He’s cool and I would do it again, but it IS a roll of the dice. I would also consider a purebred, though. Wife and I dog sat a King Charles for 7 months a couple years ago when a friend of my wife moved to Australia and I LOVED HIM. I can’t rule out getting a King Charles one day. 

In my experience it’s hard to find smaller dogs at shelters, especially in urban areas. We wanted a small dog, partly because I didn’t want to have to pick up gigantic shits. Anyway, a good tip is to look at shelters in small towns if you don’t want a pit bull. My wife is from a small town in west Texas and she knew about the shelter there. They had a much larger variety of dogs out there than they had in Austin, I’m guessing due to less competition from fellow adopters. We started to follow them on Instagram and when we saw our dog we messaged them and we got him. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, S John said:

In my experience it’s hard to find smaller dogs at shelters, especially in urban areas. We wanted a small dog, partly because I didn’t want to have to pick up gigantic shits. Anyway, a good tip is to look at shelters in small towns if you don’t want a pit bull. My wife is from a small town in west Texas and she knew about the shelter there. They had a much larger variety of dogs out there than they had in Austin, I’m guessing due to less competition from fellow adopters. We started to follow them on Instagram and when we saw our dog we messaged them and we got him. 

Bingo to the bolded. 

[and love the tangent]

I'm renting right now so as to be less encumbered with the impending move to the island this summer. I preface with that because our daughters have been really good with the online school thing [they haven't been to in-person class since last April] so I put in some effort getting the landlords to be ok with a dog as a Christmas present slash reward. Their caveat: ok, but it had to be a small breed.

All the local shelters, if they had dogs even, only had large breeds, so that was a no. An acquaintance of mine knows a Frenchie breeder, so I got the girls a pick from a litter [and yeah, Frenchies are ridiculously expensive, but my youngest's favorite breed] The girls have facetimed with her plenty since birth, and we get to pick Tulip up on Mar 13th. I prefer large breeds myself, but she's a beautiful little lilac pied. 

We're head over heels already.   

 

edit: I'm buying property for a build on the island, and I've already got my eye on getting a couple dogo argentinos

Link to comment
Share on other sites

56 minutes ago, Jaxom 1974 said:

Except he did catch Leo...it just took a while...

 

You're confusing him with Nazi Germany (going back to saving private Damon), Leo surrendered because the French were coming. That's also the difference.

3 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

She got two and bred them on her rural property and everyone was happy about it. She also interviewed people who wanted them( she was not out for money) She had some war trauma, so liked the protection...naturally better than a gun, but they had those as well. ( stored safely) someone I know had to make sure that he was not at the bottom of the pecking order. Skills are required.

Personally, I think the German Sheperd's ancestor, the Hovawart, meets those specifications, too, and is imho the cooler breed. On the other hand, Hovies are somewhat less eager to please and a bit more of a challenge to train properly. But that's my personal opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, DMC said:

Manchin and Sinema only care about how it polls in West Virginia and Arizona.  Same reason gun control can't happen.

Again, if you're gonna put it in the reconciliation bill anyway, then there's no point in having reconciliation in the first place.  It'd be effectively abolishing the filibuster, which there's obviously not 50 votes for.  You're living in fantasy land.  And stupidly bad politics land, for that matter.

Please explain to me why removing the obstacles to actually being able to pass shit rather than just blaming Republicans for your own ineptitude is bad politics? Sure, you can say there isn't 50 votes for abolishing the filibuster, and that is correct, but I'm not talking about. The raise in the minimum wage does effect the federal budget even with the rather bullshit , so the idea that this is just arbitrarily violating the reconciliation process is factually wrong. This is about Democrats using procedural hurdles they are choosing not to overcome as an excuse for their in actions on one of if not the most popular bi-partisan policy proposals going right now. This was a major campaign promise, and if we're just not going to do shit that people can actively point to and say "this made my life better", we're fucked.

Or perhaps you're talking about putting Manchin and Sinema in an uncomfortable position. If those two are going to prioritize their bullshit maverick image they deserve to feel uncomfortable and take votes that make them look bad. You think West Virginians just don't want to make more money? That is asinine. This is about signalling to these two that while we want to work with them, they are not going to hold Biden's campaign promises hostage for their brand. 72% of Americans want it. They're not going to jump ship over this when push comes to shove.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, HoodedCrow said:

 

 

Yes they should probably stop with the bull dogs, although they are best known to me to be good with children, low energy and good natured. Nice for a companion or mainly house dog.

As someone with two rescue Persians, we should not be breeding ANY of the brachycephalic breeds. They have tons of health issues and trouble with everything from eating to breathing their whole lives. I know my cats would have better lives without the flat faces. They are also prone to heart issues and skin issues (the dogs are too). It’s just a cruel thing to do to an animal.

As for the bulldog temperament, you can get a friendly low energy family dog with a Pyrenees, and they can breathe AND protect your livestock.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enough about the canines.

In news more relevant to the thread, CPAC managed the...near impossible...and sank to a new low.  Click on the link for pics of the item in question if brave enough....

 

https://globalnews.ca/news/7664549/donald-trump-cpac-statue-golden-calf/?fbclid=IwAR1FoXe0n26MVNxwInZ6YyGmRga2U3KDcCWh-iCGYU1O_zeurWnIK6XxWoM

 

Social media users were quoting the Ten Commandments film and the Book of Exodus in droves on Friday, after video from the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) revealed a golden idol-like statue of former U.S. president Donald Trump.

The video captured by a Bloomberg News reporter shows attendants wheeling a giant golden caricature of Trump into the conference hall, amid speculation that the 2020 election loser will announce another run during the three-day conference in Orlando, Fla.

READ MORE: McConnell says he would ‘absolutely’ support Trump if he wins 2024 nomination

The roughly human-sized statue depicts Trump with an oversized golden head and a big smile on his face. His body is made entirely of gold, and he is “dressed” in a shirt, tie and jacket, with star-spangled shorts instead of pants.

The statue appeared to be a hit with nearby attendees, including many who wore shirts from Trump’s losing 2020 presidential campaign.

“That is so cool,” one person can be heard saying.

“Four more years,” another chants.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reading about the minimum wage upthread and Manchin’s role in killing the increase to $15 is so ironic. Back in the day WV was the center of the labor movement and even the scene of an armed insurrection in favor of workers rights. It’s a sad state of affairs but the outside moneyed interests have finally won. Most of the state is so afraid of what will happen if the jobs leave that they’ll eat any shit sandwich, beg for another bite, and then be proud of the fact.

Personal anecdote, my grandfather’s grandfather was killed in a mine explosion in West Virginia about the turn of the century. He actually survived the explosion and died a couple days later after what I assume was an agonizing few days. The owners of the mine then blamed the explosion on him since he was too dead to defend himself. 

There were too many kids in the family to support after the patriarch was blown to smithereens which led to about half of the 10 kids being given up to an orphanage. Included in that number was my great-grandfather who was very young at the time. He grew up to run a tavern in WV. No member of my family ever went down into the mines after my great-great grandfather was killed. The local paper noted that my relative was the only ‘white man’ killed in the explosion - the other 4 dead being Italian.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

You're confusing him with Nazi Germany (going back to saving private Damon), Leo surrendered because the French were coming. That's also the difference.

 

Nah. Tom ran Leo down and had him boxed in to where the French were going to muck it up and he stepped in to finish hisjob. So I guess in a way, he saved Private Ryan and Leo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ThinkerX said:

In news more relevant to the thread, CPAC managed the...near impossible...and sank to a new low.  Click on the link for pics of the item in question if brave enough....

https://globalnews.ca/news/7664549/donald-trump-cpac-statue-golden-calf/?fbclid=IwAR1FoXe0n26MVNxwInZ6YyGmRga2U3KDcCWh-iCGYU1O_zeurWnIK6XxWoM

I think the stage design has that beat.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, GrimTuesday said:

Please explain to me why removing the obstacles to actually being able to pass shit rather than just blaming Republicans for your own ineptitude is bad politics? Sure, you can say there isn't 50 votes for abolishing the filibuster, and that is correct, but I'm not talking about. The raise in the minimum wage does effect the federal budget even with the rather bullshit , so the idea that this is just arbitrarily violating the reconciliation process is factually wrong. This is about Democrats using procedural hurdles they are choosing not to overcome as an excuse for their in actions on one of if not the most popular bi-partisan policy proposals going right now.

What the hell are you talking about?  The fact is the Dems don't have 50 votes to pass the bill with the minimum wage hike.  Admitting that fact isn't just using procedural hurdles "as an excuse."  If Harris overruled the parliamentarian, or Schumer fired and replaced her, not only would that only serve to harden Manchin and Sinema's stance, you might lose more votes that are in favor of the wage hike but not under those circumstances.  So you'd be forcing a vote you know you're gonna lose for what?  Spite?  As an attack against your own members?  Yeah, it's generally not good politics if the predominate motive is juvenile revenge.

Also, no, it's not "factually wrong" to say adding the minimum wage to reconciliation violates the intent of the Byrd rule.  This has always been pretty clear to many since Biden announced the proposal - including, eventually, Biden himself.  The minimum wage has never been an aspect of the budget process - which is what reconciliation was created for - and its inclusion is quite obviously "extraneous" in that its budgetary impact is decidedly incidental - no matter how the CBO scores the measure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, DireWolfSpirit said:

According to polling, support for student loan forgiveness, has fallen in the U.S.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/less-than-half-of-americans-support-student-loan-forgiveness-poll-183840781.html

Like I tried to warn before, decent policy, bad politics. A majority of tax payers did not go to college. They aren't going to want to give people that did a bailout in their eyes, and a lot of college educated people who paid theirs debts will be less sympathetic as well. You have to fix the central point of the problem, not mitigate the side-effects.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DMC said:

What the hell are you talking about?  The fact is the Dems don't have 50 votes to pass the bill with the minimum wage hike.  Admitting that fact isn't just using procedural hurdles "as an excuse."  If Harris overruled the parliamentarian, or Schumer fired and replaced her, not only would that only serve to harden Manchin and Sinema's stance, you might lose more votes that are in favor of the wage hike but not under those circumstances.  So you'd be forcing a vote you know you're gonna lose for what?  Spite?  As an attack against your own members?  Yeah, it's generally not good politics if the predominate motive is juvenile revenge.

Also, no, it's not "factually wrong" to say adding the minimum wage to reconciliation violates the intent of the Byrd rule.  This has always been pretty clear to many since Biden announced the proposal - including, eventually, Biden himself.  The minimum wage has never been an aspect of the budget process - which is what reconciliation was created for - and its inclusion is quite obviously "extraneous" in that its budgetary impact is decidedly incidental - no matter how the CBO scores the measure.

Do you really think Dems would split apart and tank a relief bill just because of the minimum wage provision?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, larrytheimp said:

Do you really think Dems would split apart and tank a relief bill just because of the minimum wage provision?

I really think Manchin and Sinema will vote against a reconciliation bill with the minimum wage hike included, yes.  Why?  Because they've said so - clearly, publicly, and recently.  Sinema was crystal clear about her opposition to including it in a reconciliation bill, and Manchin even told the people protesting his position that he continued to oppose a $15 hike.  I hardly think the Senate parliamentarian agreeing with them and giving them cover will change that.

Now, if you're asking if the Dem leadership will risk tanking the bill by ignoring/circumventing the parliamentarian and insisting on its inclusion anyway - no, I definitely do not.  Because they're not idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...