- MADDOG10's Blog has 1,827 entries (1 private) and has been viewed 1,619,317 times.
- Lottery Post members have made 7394 comments in MADDOG10's Blog.
- MADDOG10 is a Platinum member
April 24, 2017, 7:06 pmHe's entitled too, just like the last one.
April 22, 2017, 11:32 amKeeping the sound of BELLS within sight.!
Dutch the Rooster...
Butch the Rooster
Sarah was in the fertilized egg business. She had several hundred young pullets and ten roosters to fertilize the eggs....
She kept records and any rooster not performing went into the soup pot and was replaced.
This took a lot of time, so she bought some tiny bells and attached them to her roosters. Each bell had a different tone, so she could tell from a distance which rooster was performing. Now, she could sit on the porch and fill out an efficiency report by just listening to the bells.
Sarah's favorite rooster, old Butch, was a very fine specimen but, this morning she noticed old Butch's bell hadn't rung at all! When she went to investigate, she saw the other roosters were busy chasing pullets, bells-a-ringing, but the pullets hearing the roosters coming, would run for cover.
To Sarah's amazement, old Butch had his bell in his beak, so it couldn't ring. He'd sneak up on a pullet, do his job, and walk on to the next one.
Sarah was so proud of old Butch, she entered him in a Show and he became an overnight sensation among the judges.
The result was the judges not only awarded old Butch the "No Bell Peace Prize" they also awarded him the "Pulletsurprise" as well.
Clearly old Butch was a politician in the making. Who else but a politician could figure out how to win two of the most coveted awards on our planet by being the best at sneaking up on the unsuspecting populace and screwing them when they weren't paying attention?
The moral of the story?
Vote carefully in the next election.
You can't always hear the bells.
April 19, 2017, 10:09 amThey were just overwhelmed by other clowns.
April 18, 2017, 9:48 pmI have never thought of myself as Prejudiced.
April 18, 2017, 12:12 pmYou, do the math.!
April 16, 2017, 10:18 pmThe names may change, but the faces remain the same.!
April 15, 2017, 11:43 pm" Happy Easter " Everyone.
April 13, 2017, 11:47 pmWhat a difference a few months make.
April 10, 2017, 8:53 pmThis Bookstore just up'd their Stock.!
April 2, 2017, 11:37 pmGeez, you could have fooled me. LOL.!
March 31, 2017, 9:21 amWhy hasn't anyone asked this Question?
March 28, 2017, 11:35 pmRotflmao...!
March 28, 2017, 11:19 amThe Democrats are going to get their Buttocks handed to them over the delay
Democrats are delaying for one week an initial committee vote on Neil Gorsuch, President Trump's nominee to the Supreme Court.
Sen. Chuck GrassleyChuck GrassleyRNC head: Dems acting ‘petty’ to GorsuchDems delay Senate panel vote on Supreme Court nomineeGrassley wants details on firm tied to controversial Trump dossierMORE (R-Iowa), the chairman of the committee, said Democrats had requested that the committee's vote on Gorsuch be punted to next week.
"I understand that the minority would like to hold [him] over," Grassley said during the Judiciary Committee's meeting on Monday.
Under committee rules any one member can request that a nomination be held the first time it appears on the agenda.
Democrats were widely expected to delay the committee's vote until next week.
The delay means the committee vote will take place on April 3, giving Republicans days to meet their goal of winning Gorsuch's confirmation by the full Senate by the end of that week.
The Senate will then go into a recess.
Monday, accusing the Kentucky Republican of "ramming" Gorsuch through the Senate.
The average length of time between a committee vote and a full Senate vote is 12 days, according to Schumer's office.
Democrats are demanding a 60-vote threshold for Gorsuch's approval, but it is unclear whether the party has enough votes to support a filibuster against Trump's nominee.
“I am not inclined to filibuster, even though I’m not inclined to vote for him," Leahy told a Vermont news outlet.
Roughly 14 senators—largely from the party's progressive wing—have said they expect to oppose Gorsuch's nomination. No Democrats have come out in support of him, but most senators up for reelection in states carried by Trump remain on the fence.
Republicans have suggested they will change the Senate's rules allowing a filibuster for Supreme Court nominees if Democrats block Gorsuch.
The committee held a four-day hearing on Gorsuch's nomination last week, with Trump's nominee appearing before the committee for three days.
Grassley praised Gorsuch's performance calling him "deeply committed" to being impartial.
"Last week we got to see up-close how thoughtful, articulate, and humble he is," he said during Monday's committee meeting.
Democrats remain bitter over Republicans' refusal to give former President Obama's nominee, Merrick Garland, a hearing or a vote.
Sen. Dianne FeinsteinDianne FeinsteinOvernight Regulation: Trump repeals 'blacklisting' ruleDems delay Senate panel vote on Supreme Court nomineeDems get it wrong: 'Originalism' is mainstream, even for liberal judgesMORE (D-Calif.), the top Democrat on the committee, read a list of former presidents who had been allowed to fill a vacancy in an election year during Monday's meeting.
"You can imagine perhaps on our side the depth of feeling that came about during this period of time," she said, referring to the fight over Garland.
Feinstein added that the millions pouring in to the fight over Gorsuch from outside groups is "counterproductive."
The same way the Democrats rammed Obamacare down our throats also? It's time Democrats stop whinning.!
Democrats also delayed Rod Rosenstein, nominated to be deputy attorney general, by a week.
Last Edited: March 28, 2017, 11:20 am
March 25, 2017, 8:59 pmGo Get em Trey..!
Last Edited: March 25, 2017, 9:00 pm
March 22, 2017, 10:01 amGood Read from the N.Y. Times.
To South Carolina District, Trump’s Tough Budget Is a Promise Kept
By NICHOLAS FANDOSMARCH 19, 2017
UNION, S.C. — As Johnny Sinclair sees it, this declining mill town voted overwhelmingly to send President Trump to the White House for one overriding reason: to change rules of political engagement in Washington that had long left places like this high and dry.
So when Mr. Trump released his first budget last week, proposing to significantly shrink the footprint of federal government while building up the military, Mr. Sinclair saw a politician finally following through.
“We don’t expect Trump to get everything done he said he would. But we expect him to try,” Mr. Sinclair said Friday, as he sat in a restaurant here with four friends. “The roads may not end up paved in gold, but we expect him to be out, shovel in hand.”
In Washington, Mr. Trump’s budget has been met by many with deep, even hostile skepticism. South Carolina’s longtime Republican senior senator, Lindsey Graham, called it “dead on arrival.” Democrats’ denunciations have been even stronger.
But here, in the region that first sent Mr. Trump’s budget director, Mick Mulvaney, to Washington six years ago as a congressman, Mr. Sinclair’s conclusion appears to be the more common one, even if opinions differ on which programs need cutting.
“The budget reflects, in my mind, just what he said he was going to do,” said John Day, who lives about an hour away from here in the rapidly growing, decidedly more prosperous suburbs of Charlotte. Republicans and the news media ought to give Mr. Trump a chance, he said, echoing a point Mr. Mulvaney made when he unveiled the budget last week: After all, what did they expect?
The district Mr. Mulvaney represented in Congress, which has lurched rightward in recent decades, is a blend of overwhelmingly conservative suburbs, blue-collar former mill towns like Union where Mr. Trump’s populist appeal was strongest, and military communities scattered around installations at Shaw Air Force Base and nearby Fort Jackson in the region’s southernmost reaches.
Few congressional districts better capture the breadth of the unorthodox coalition that came together to elect Mr. Trump in November than this one. And though they found reasons to differ, Trump voters interviewed across the district since the budget was released Thursday seemed to embrace the document as the president’s clearest declaration yet of how he wants to reshape the federal government.
Here in Union, where thousands lost their jobs when a dozen or so textile mills closed in the 1980s and 1990s, the effects of government spending have often been hard to see. Many blame the North American Free Trade Agreement for the region’s decline, though academics disagree. No matter the cause, the void left behind has never really been filled, save perhaps by a deep suspicion of the federal government’s ability to meaningfully help.
Sitting around a table at Bantam Chef, where they regularly meet, Mr. Sinclair, 72, and his friends can still tick off the names of the shuttered operations. Government assistance that helped is harder to name, even though the city has benefited from a slew of federal grants and social programs over the years.
Mr. Sinclair worked in a mill here before spending three decades at Duke Energy. A former Democratic precinct captain and still a “card-carrying” Democrat, he voted for Mr. Trump like so many here because he was desperate to try something different.
“We haven’t gotten nothing out of the last few presidents,” he said, whether they were Republican or Democrat. Mr. Sinclair said he was not against federal programs to support things like infrastructure and education — but why not shake things up?
Phillip Lemons has watched the decline play out here for almost 20 years through the floor-to-ceiling windows of his jewelry shop on Main Street. His business has trundled along despite a 40 percent decline in sales since the 1990s, but like many here, Mr. Lemons said he had seen enough friends and family struggle to regain their footing after the textile industry collapse not to question whether some benefits on the chopping block might be best left alone.
“I think a person needs to help themselves, but there are people who have done that and you can’t just tell them we’re going to change the law and take them away,” he said.
Like Mr. Sinclair, Mr. Lemons considered Mr. Trump’s straightforward, businesslike approach a badly needed breath of fresh air. His budget, a savvy “opening salvo,” as Mr. Lemons described it, only backs up that initial assessment.
Still, Mr. Lemons had a word of caution for the president, from one businessman to another.
“I’d tell him to remember an average person,” Mr. Lemons said. “That’s something I’ve worried about from the beginning. Being so rich, how is he going to stay in touch with the average person?”
The scene could hardly have been more different in the Charlotte suburbs, where Mr. Day sat drinking a beer with his wife, Malissa, in Baxter Village, a planned community where children in ballet clothes and taekwondo robes bounced along the sidewalks on Thursday afternoon. The development sprouted up over the past two decades as Charlotte and the surrounding area emerged as a global business hub.
“I think the people need to realize that we are $20 trillion in debt, and you can’t keep spending money on programs that have shown no appreciable impact,” said Mr. Day, who goes by Chip.
Other programs, like the Environmental Protection Agency, or funded areas like the arts, public news media and foreign aid, had simply grown beyond appropriate bounds, he said.
“We have so many problems here in America, so many people who legitimately need help, why wouldn’t we try our own first?” he said.
There were specific proposals — likes cuts to medical research and some programs supporting the poor — with which he did not agree, Mr. Day said, conferring with his wife. But to get hung up on them would be to miss the larger story.
“The small stuff will fall out,” Mr. Day said. “It always does.”
Two hours south, where the district’s far corner includes Shaw Air Force Base, home to the 20th Fighter Wing, families affiliated with the base and with nearby Fort Jackson hope the big stuff — a proposed $54 billion bump to the Defense Department’s budget — will not.
As he walked with his wife though a park in Sumter, not far from the base, Harold Gonzales, who flew F-16s for two decades, said he was pleased not only that Mr. Trump had made good on his campaign pledge, but that he had proposed a budget at all after five years when sequestration had determined the armed forces spending.
More money would mean upgraded equipment with new technology, more flight time for pilots at Shaw who badly need it and a better shot at retaining top military talent. Cuts to other federal expenses, he said, would simply need to be swallowed to get American defenses where they need to be to maintain standing vis-à-vis adversaries like Russia and China.
Though that, he conceded, would require more budgeting.
Last Edited: March 22, 2017, 10:02 am