Neo

To PastaJoe: Correct! Happy hour post!

With all due respect to Mr. Sizzle, who has a place on any top shelf, I've always viewed the hit-list "lists" the same way I've viewed the birth certificate, Kenyan, Muslim, Barak Hussein, conversations. That is, I don't spend much time with them or give them much credence. Perhaps I'm Kay to Michael. "Who's naive, Neo"? The CIA is dirty business. Im sure GWB made some tough and ugly calls performing his duty. I'm compelled to write only because I find GWB's commitment to clean, altruistic, public service the equal of anyone's, I am a fan of the family, legitimate policy conversations notwithstanding.

^ ahead of me!??!

I wonder if I'm remembering the same thing. I don't think I was here in 2006. I PM'd in February, 2013.

The Lindy Story was/is a SS highlight. I recall it, still. PA, you got my first ever PM with that story. Link? I'd never find it.

This could be the cause of the confusion or differing opinions. They're not your sports teams. They're Kim and Terry Pegula's sports teams. I fidget.

Also known as F5 day.

I like the thought, but I consent to being governed way too much to satisfy earnest Libertarians. Maybe I'm a pragmatic Libertarian who chooses not to fight every fight.

I inhaled.

First and foremost, I was directing nothing toward you or anyone else! I get fidgety when we link "earn" with "use". As TBPHD points out, concepts get conflated. I think the two are as different as mangos and aardvarks. Examples cited here regarding earnings include money and college degrees. I earn or earned both under as clear a set of guidelines as can be, I suppose. They're some fraction of my total life. As others have pointed out, the money's shared in my marriage. What I do with my property, nearly all of which I've derived from my earnings, is my decision regardless of how it's earned as long as I'm earning and using it legally. Substitute "we" for "I" and you can include my wife. I've made good choices and bad. I over simplify and call that the view of half of our society. I suspect that's optimistic and have accepted I'm actually in the minority. Linking earning with use and inviting the opinion of others introduces "should, deserve and fair". All are legitimate concepts by themselves unless you allow them to trespass or until you allow them to be determinative. When "should, deserve and fair" trespass, suddenly you've opened the door to policy discussions that make choices for me and subject my property to confiscation. I fidget. Again, I've over simplified and identified this view as belonging to half of America. Opportunity arises for those who take and for those who represent the philosophy of taking. I'm a simple man. "Earn, should, deserve and fair" are words that dress confiscation, and the limiting of choice, in moral or ethical clothing and then invite them into discussions where they don't belong. I'll not take my neighbor's lawnmower. No one would. Unless, of course, I can look at the lawnmower as something he didn't earn, shouldn't have, doesn't deserve, and as something it would be fair to me to have. Now, I have a rationale to take based on such virtuous concepts. Language interests me.

For half of America it's a mistake that ends there. For the other half, it's a mistake that presents an opportunity and has become a guiding principle. Sorry, you can't take me anywhere. At least I kept it brief!

You're on to something ... If Mrs. Neo DOES throw me out of the house, I'm showing up at yours.

I had a dream last night. He signed, and we traded him for Zack Kassian at the deadline.

I DO like it. I'd add only that you don't have to let markets do anything. You can only prevent them from doing what they'd like to. I enjoy KP's involvement and have no quarrel regarding the roles she does and does not play. However they make choices, it seems to work for them. Opinion: I'm sorta proud our teams have ownership comprised of two faces in industries dominated by single faces. Mrs. Neo and I earn different amounts of money. We live in our house.

This made me think and write. I have no idea what Vesey wants, requires or demands. In the same situation, there are things I'd want, require or demand. There's a difference, though. I'd explain those things to teams I'm talking to, How and why his list ever was made public, I don't know. It may not hurt him. It does not help him. It moves the player vibe emphasis from "how can I help a hockey team" to "how will it help me". No doubt, both exist in all situations. I'm a fan. I'm more interested in "how can I help the team" guys, stories or narratives. We'll have more talent if Vesey signs. I'll cheer for Deslauriers.

Thank you for asking. I have no idea, and it bothers me.

John McLaughlin died today. I am more than passingly sad. The McLaughlin Group was must see television for me during my politically formative years. The well respected right and left battled it out, issue by issue. My political philosophy emerged. Rough and tumble, fast and furious. Passion, thoughtfullness and good natured ribbing - sometimes with an edge. Is it any wonder I spend time here? "From the nation's capital, The McLaughlin Group, an unrehearsed program presenting inside opinions and forecasts .... Issue ONE, The Crumbling Tower, or ... So long, honeymoon." (John Tower nomination). McLaughlin, Buchanan, Kondracke, Barnes, Germond, Novak, Clift "GE, We bring good things to life ....."

Out loud!

I think it is genuine. It is a gift.

Bill had his issues. He was a fine President.

Can't do it now because of time. I'll noodle and see if something coherent comes together in my mind. I do love your invitation. It will allow me to confess that there are equal parts analysis and visceral feel to my view. The visceral feel may not be my best friend when making choices. It may not be a bad friend, either. It's worth acknowledging, though, in a forum where I make cases pro and con. I owe that to the collective "you". I agree with your "slightly right of Nixon" assessment.

Without slandering Democrats (let's say representatives), yes, I do. Gruber giggled the truth out in several self important videos. Not that the truth was difficult to see, mind you. The sales pitch (in addition to the humanitarian benefit to 30 million citizens) became cost curves (ticket prices) and keeping your doctor (food portions). I support exploring the benefit. Let's figure it out. I'm a pro-business conservative who may support just what you describe. My business bosses understand what you're describing. Let's simply call a shovel a shovel upfront, discuss reality and scarcity, and not demonize insurance companies for jumping when poked. Overall, I believe choice and competition give consumers better outcomes. Sorta in, sorta out, doesn't exist. If I'm wrong, I'll look for candidates who nationalize food, make it less expensive, and promise it to us all. Regarding my obscure Gruber references: NY Post - WASHINGTON — A top architect of ObamaCare is under heavy fire after saying the “stupidity” of the American public was critical to the law’s passage — along with deliberate subterfuges. “Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage,” the adviser, MIT health economist Jonathan Gruber, declared in newly unearthed video from an academic conference at the University of Pennsylvania in 2013. “And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically that was really, really critical for the thing to pass,” he added. “Look, I wish . . . that we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

In, 9/6

And the "bending the cost curve down" fallacy explodes in a headline... If only The Amazing Kreskin hadn't had a seat at the table. We might have had a debate. Step 1 in the ACA Trojan Horse toward a single payer* system is taking place. Somewhere, Jonathan Gruber is smiling. Said another way, shareholders of insurance companies are not satisfied with their ROEs so the companies are re-deploying capital. Said still another way, insurance companies are doing exactly what we require them to do. ACA and/or single payer supporters should be saying "check" and not expressing outrage. Maybe they are. When you invite more guests to the party, each current guest gets less food OR the catering bill and ticket price go up. Assuming we want more guests, Event Coordinators adjust accordingly. Wise Coordinators figure out which consequence their existing guests prefer. If existing guests say neither and insist on more guests, Event Coordinators do other things with their time and money. For those skeptical of free markets, I offer the headline for consideration. Fair and Balanced: If Dems hid the argument, Reps never clearly articulated alternatives. All IMHO. * See, I can be taught spelling! "I'd rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University". William F. Buckley, Jr.

Sounds to me like you did.