Muda69

Yes it may have. Mr. Trump could very possibly have been reelected POTUS in November of 2020, before the investigation had been properly completed. And he still may, especially if the Senate fails to convict him.

Jim Lehrer of the ‘MacNeil-Lehrer Report’ dies at 85: https://apnews.com/f8aeb6fc3fc76ef11bca1d6368afb4f9 Truly an American icon among lovers of news. He will be missed.

https://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/stop-saying-that-impeachment-is-political Would the democratic side of the uni-party pushed so hard for impeachment in late 2019 if 2020 was not a presidential election year?

Not as much as a formal Senate Impeachment Trial would. Ask your Congressmen. Congress is the completely partisan, do-nothing, only care about getting reelected body that has abdicated so much of it's responsibility to the Executive Branch over the decades. Of course the level of power is ok when it is your side of the uni-party sitting in the Oval Office..........................

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

https://www.illinoispolicy.org/reports/still-leaving-illinois-an-exodus-of-people-and-money/

Sales history and the fact that we are currently on Windows version 10 says yes. Did Mr. Gates earn his billions, Dante? Did Mr. Bezos? Why or why not?

I don't get the reference. Sorry. If they buy it or make it themselves, yes. Why should government automatically provide the free cake?

It was, without a doubt, a rushed process. The House should have taken more time to investigate, gather witnesses, etc. But no, the entire thing, being at it's base completely political in nature was all about "impeach the orange man NOW, so it will hurt his re-election chances!" And again for the record I did not vote for either uni-party candidate in 2016, nor will I in 2020.

I can't speak for all libertarians but I have never stolen a straw. Are you saying that you have never used a straw in your entire life?

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: 'No One Ever Makes a Billion Dollars. You Take a Billion Dollars. What is the correct reward for the person who creates something that millions of people want badly enough to pay for it? ': https://reason.com/2020/01/22/alexandria-ocasio-cortez-no-one-ever-makes-a-billion-dollars-you-take-a-billion-dollars/ Speaking of Amazon: As of 2015, the company claimed to have more than 300 million active user accounts. Amazon Prime ended 2019 with more than 112 million users worldwide, an estimated 90 to 95 million of them based in the U.S., which tells us that nearly a third of American residents find Amazon Prime valuable enough to shell out roughly $100 annually for the service. A vast pool of people are willing to pay for Prime memberships for the convenience of having Amazon products delivered to their door in two days flat; a massive library of on-demand music, TV, and movies; and other conveniences. What is the correct reward (to borrow Ocasio-Cortez's framing) for the person who creates something that millions of people want badly enough to pay for it? Does that reward scale up based on the number of paying users? Should it be decided democratically (and who should we trust to make such a call)? Would the reward scale for entrepreneurial success be adjustable for inflation? What about the entrepreneur who invests his allotted reward? What about the entrepreneurs who lose money? The process of determining by fiat who gets what sounds like it might be more difficult than Ocasio-Cortez implies. Luckily, markets do that for us. Profit is a tremendous part of what inspires people to innovate. Why build new tech products or household appliances or lab-grown meat substitutes if you're not going to be rewarded for your endeavor? "It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner," goes the old Adam Smith quote, "but from their regard to their own self-interest." The development of new vaccines, the aforementioned pursuit of meat substitutes which will prevent animal slaughter and all kinds of environmental havoc, aren't motivated solely by altruism. The technologies that will make those innovations possible were also not developed for free. Markets play matchmaker between people with ideas, people with resources, and people who can use the latter to realize the former. Central planners like Ocasio-Cortez toying with the levers to determine who makes what amount of profit might even prevent future Amazons from existing at all. Ocasio-Cortez is right to be concerned with working conditions for those at the bottom of the income distribution latter, and for would-be competitors who are sabotaged by the union of big business and big government. Undocumented immigrants do have to settle for less because they can't work here legally. Then again, the fact that they can work in the U.S. at all—making less than native-born workers but more than they would in their country of origin—is possible thanks to markets. She's also correct that Amazon succeeds at rent-seeking and cozying up to politicians in order to be the beneficiary of all kinds of political favors. When Amazon announced it was seeking a location for its second headquarters, governments engaged in a subsidy bidding war at taxpayers' expense. Shame on Amazon, as well as the many politicians who think it permissible to dole out money to companies like Amazon. But does Ocasio-Cortez honestly believe we'd see less of that if the government had even more power to choose which companies win and lose? Amazon, at its best, despite its many flaws, is the product of what's best about capitalism: It enables millions of people to have access to consumer goods more cheaply than before, and it provides consensual work opportunities for people who want them. The company could be better, but Ocasio-Cortez and bigger government are unlikely to beat the market.

Off topic for this thread but I agree. Why is it the business of government to guarantee "prosperity" for everyone?

So you steal them?

I don't believe SF's comment was indicating there was a trial in the U.S. House of Representatives. His statement indicates the hypocrisy of Mr. Schiff and Mr. Nadler complaining about how "unfair" the U.S. Senate trial is/will be in regards to their partisan behavior & performance during the impeachment hearings in the House. https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/schiff-nadler-impeachment-tension-spill-onto-senate-floor Reading comprehension is your friend, don't let it be blinded by your "Orange man bad!!!!!" hatred.

Are there not cases where you need to stop before entering a roundabout, hence the YIELD sign that I see at them? https://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Safety/roundabouts/default.htm Also I saw this recently: Illinois is just jealous.................

And I believe this driving behavior is now illegal in the state of Indiana.

https://reason.com/2020/01/22/capitalism-has-improved-access-to-entertainment/ Agreed. Keep government out of the market as much as possible, and let entrepreneurs innovate and create. All consumers will benefit, that has been proven.

Roberts admonishes House prosecution, White House defense: https://apnews.com/ddec6989614fea6b5421c130a4ee4efa We'll see how long Mr. Roberts can keep things civil during this trial.

I doubt it. Serious business.

Public Schools Cannot Be Religiously Neutral, But School Choice Makes Neutrality Possible: https://www.cato.org/blog/supreme-court-must-understand-public-schools-cannot-be-religiously-neutral

https://reason.com/2020/01/21/covington-catholic-media-nick-sandmann-lincoln-memorial/ Telling that is was only a libertarian outlet like Reason that gave the Covington kids a fair shake and didn't resort to hysteria.

I find this YouTube channel interesting: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC2I6Et1JkidnnbWgJFiMeHA Also watched The Report on Amazon Prime video over the weekend. From the description: "An idealistic Senate staffer leads an investigation into the CIA’s post-9/11 Detention and Interrogation Program. A relentless pursuit of the truth uncovers explosive findings and the lengths to which a brutal secret was hidden from the American public. This riveting thriller is based on actual events and a bi-partisan approved, Senate Intelligence Investigation and Report."

Now Residing In The Blessed Realm: Chris Tolkien (1924-2020): https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/now-residing-in-the-blessed-realm-christopher-tolkien-1924-2020/ Truly an icon among lovers of fantasy literature. He carried on his father's legacy well. He will be missed.

When we’re talking about how extreme it is to think that we might need to rise up against an oppressive government someday . . . “If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” —-Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers No. 29 https://www.congress.gov/resources/display/content/The+Federalist+Papers#TheFederalistPapers-29 Hamilton helped train an army of farmers and shopkeepers that rose up against an oppressive government that was violating their rights. Was that extreme then, or is it just extreme now for some reason? There are 100 million gun owners in this country, the overwhelming majority of which have never pointed their guns at anyone, much less shot people with them. How can something done by a third of all Americans be considered radical or extreme? If tens of millions of Americans own guns for reasons that have nothing to do with the fear of oppressive government, as it’s justified in the text of the Second Amendment, does that make their gun ownership more extreme or less extreme? The idea that people should be free to own guns for any reason they want, isn’t that more extreme than the idea that they should be able to do so specifically because ownership deters oppressive government? There isn’t anything extreme about the idea that we might need to do what our ancestors did. Doing what our ancestors did is more like a tradition, “tradition” being something like an opposite of “extreme”. If anything is actually extreme, surely it’s the idea that we should violate the rights of 100 million gun owning American citizens and declare them criminals–even though they’ve never pointed a gun at anyone, much less used a gun to violate someone’s rights. If anything is extreme, isn’t it the idea that the rights of 100 million Americans should be violated without the benefit of a trial or a jury or even the commission of a crime–that their constitutional rights should be forfeit simply because politicians say so?