Muda69

*yawn* Now go play in the dirt gonzo. It's what you are best at.

No, Gonzo. I gave you the logical proof you asked for. Now you are just spinning and stretching your self into oblivion. Again.

Here's what Indiana's 'stay at home order' means during the coronavirus pandemic: https://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2020/03/23/indianas-stay-home-order-what-means-how-long-lasts/2899240001/ "Outdoor activities such as walking." Good, should be no issues with my short hiking and backpacking trip planned for later in the week. Not that such an order would stop me in the first place.................

I believe it was you or your sockpuppet Barry who brought up the subject, not I. I simply asked for proof of the assertion. That is hardly a "debate". Although to somebody as simple minded as you it probably seems like it.

We Will Regret Not Taking the Economic Effects of Mass Quarantine More Seriously: https://reason.com/2020/03/23/we-will-regret-not-taking-the-economic-effects-of-mass-quarantine-more-seriously/ Elsewhere, the Nobel Prize–winning biophysicist Michael Levitt, who predicted—apparently accurately—a much-swifter decline in coronavirus spread in China and elsewhere, is arguing that an overreaction to the disease could do more damage than the disease itself. The Los Angeles Times reports: Levitt isn't waving away health concerns, but he's following the numbers as he finds them. Even in heavily affected countries such as Iran, which is reportedly suffering from a lack of medical resources, new infections have leveled off: On March 19, the editorial board of The Wall Street Journal argued that "no society can safeguard public health for long at the cost of its overall economic health." Just a few days ago, it seemed plausible to argue for a more measured response to the pandemic, one that balanced several areas of concern, including the economy, civil liberties, and the psychological effects of quarantines: Not even a full week later, those concerns seem as distant and irrelevant as arguments against massive (and ineffective) stimulus spending in the wake of the 2008 financial crisis. If the problem this time is literally new—"the novel coronavirus"—the politics are all too familiar. As the Journal editors put it: For the next few weeks (months? years?), nothing will matter more to politicians and the media except increasingly stringent public health measures that will become more draconian (and probably less successful) than those taken in countries such as South Korea, where life is beginning to drift back to normal. But as the window on a measured response gets nailed shut like the apartment doors of infected residents in China reportedly were, we should put in a marker to come back to these questions whenever life returns to normal. These policies are killing the United States of America, and that death is not from the COVID-19.

Why yes, everyone keeps a full-sized American Flag and what looks to be some kind of fern in their bathroom. Just keep digging your hole of stupidity gonzo. It is quite humorous.

What about the late Mr. Allen?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30452873

No, Chief. It says a lot about yours that don't choose to recognize technical talent and business intelligence. You want a real tech charlatan and shyster? Try the late Steve Jobs. His success was built on the back of primarily one brilliant and graceful individual: Steve Wozniak.

Bullshit and you know it. Read your history. Who wrote the first viable BASIC for the Altair and the 6502 microprocessor? Mr. Gates and Mr. Allen did. And Mr. Gates was smart enough to make a savvy acquisition, 86-DOS – owned by Seattle Computer Products and written by Tim Paterson, and rename is MS-DOS. Sorry that you deride any individual who shows real intelligence and business acumen. But they again you are a champion of the "race to the bottom" paradigm.

Justice Department Reportedly Asks Congress for Indefinite Detention Powers To Fight Coronavirus: https://reason.com/2020/03/21/justice-department-reportedly-asks-congress-for-indefinite-detention-powers-to-fight-coronavirus/\ "The DOJ proposal is deeply troubling and would raise a whole host of constitutional concerns," says Scott Bullock, president and general counsel for the Institute for Justice, a libertarian law firm. "History demonstrates again and again that governments use a crisis to expand power and violate vital constitutional principles. And when the supposed emergency is over, the expanded powers often become permanent." Clark Neily, vice president for criminal justice at the Cato Institute, says the Justice Department should not be trusted with more expansive powers. "If history is any indication, it's a near certainty that these powers will be abused and that DOJ will try to hide those abuses when they occur," says Neily. "This is simply not an agency that has earned the kind of trust implied by these requests for increased authority and discretion." It's also unclear how allowing indefinite detention would help fight the coronavirus outbreak. It seems more likely that the DOJ is learning from members of Congress and the president that the crisis provides a convenient excuse to ask for things it already wanted in the first place. "Congress must loudly reply 'NO,'" wrote Rep. Justin Amash on Twitter. If you think that those powers, once granted by Congress, would be used only in temporary or emergency situations—well, I have a 2001 Authorization on the Use of Military Force to sell you. Exactly. If the Justice Department and Mr. Barr get what they want here it will never go away. After all never let a good "crisis" go to waste. Police State.

Why yes gonzo, a grown man and politician is going to make some kind of speech/comment/announcement, standing in what is most likely some kind of government building, with curlers in his hair. Grow up. You mean the "corporate paymasters" whose businesses and industries provide employment to millions of American and non-American individuals?

*yawn* Lame attempt at humor using Photoshop. So 2000's...............

Will you please share with us the source material(s) you used for your studies? So? I was raised with the mantra "The world's not fair. Get used to it. Make you own success." So the achievements and monetary success of someone like Bill Gates should be diminished because he was one of those who were in the right place at the right time? Or maybe he had the foresight and intelligence to see this little thing, in its infancy, called the "personal computer" was going to change the world? As for inheritance again so what? Shouldn't an individual get to choose to whom they give the money/resources that they own and control? What business is that of government? How so? Are you sure that these non-white entrepreneurs and businessmen will not just take their place among the "small families" that you so deride?

And you know it's a perm how exactly? Why do you use the word libertarian in quotes in this context, Mr. foxbat?

Mr. Johnson was a better candidate in 2016 than either Mr. Trump or Ms. Clinton. Go ahead and continue to be a lemming Gonzo, blindly voting for whatever uni-party candidate is put before you. Because hey if that candidate wins then you by extension are a "winner" as well, right? I didn't know Rand Paul was a member of the Libertarian Party.

There hasn't been a uni-party candidate in decades that wasn't already effectively the puppet of the military-industrial complex, the CIA/Deep State, special interest groups, or a combination thereof. Here is the type of presidential candidate our uni-party system has devolved to producing:

Singer, actor, ‘The Gambler’: Kenny Rogers dies at 81: https://apnews.com/34a33052994dd662c1a8b70751e03b30 A sad day. Truly an American icon, he will be missed.

Yet most people treat treat their vote for the POTUS like it is some kind of horse race. And voting for the "lesser of two evils" is actually a valid choice. Mr. Trump or Mr. Biden is not really a choice, just voting for one side of the same uni-party coin. Vote third party and let your voice be heard.

"Rainy day fund"? The federal government hasn't had such a thing for decades, unless you call quantitative easing "aka printing more money" a rainy day fund. And federal spending has risen to the level that I guess you are ok with at least 50% of your earnings going towards taxes? No, no level of taxation will fix this mess, only a true reduction in the spending and scope of the federal government.

Yes.

lol, you truly believe that? Stop playing the victim card. What is stopping you from being one of those "few families"? Have you every stopped to think that maybe, just maybe, these "few families" had the desire, the work ethic, the idea to build businesses that allowed them accumulate that wealth? That, in fact, they earned most of it through blood, sweat, and tears? And what right do you have to demand they share their success with you and your ilk?

The "lack of social mobility" has a lot do with a lack of desire. "Just getting by" is now the accepted norm for entire swaths of the population, thanks primarily to the "War on Poverty" started by the LBJ administration. But you can look at how you'd like, that it's the fault of capitalism. It works. Evolution has taught us that.

https://www.indystar.com/story/sports/high-school/2020/03/20/emmis-investigating-dan-dakichs-comments-scottsburg-coach-firing/2881793001/ Anybody familiar with the firing of Mr. Jameson like to comment on the situation and Mr. Dakich's insinuation? Sounds like Mr. Dakich won't be invited to court side seats at a Scottsburg basketball game anytime soon...................