Has President Biden

[HONDO74]

I am still burning leaded avgas by the truckload, polluting your atmosphere,

WOW. I figured as a progressive liberal you would actually have more concern for the California environment.

I read recently that some Small airports in Calif are banning Avgas

[robert.]

I think Mr. Turner was being sarcastic.

[HONDO74]

I think Mr. Turner was being sarcastic.

I think he is telling the truth. Re-read everything he wrote....

If he can't get his way with his liberal agenda he is giving up.

As a conservative I made it through Johnson, Carter, Clinton and Obama, And unless Joe gets us into a nuclear war with Russia over the Ukraine we will all survive Biden

[robert.]

They have options now g100ul.

[HONDO74]

CAN WE FIGHT RUSSIA, CHINA and NORTH KOREA at the same time ?

Biden vows to defend Taiwan in apparent US policy shift
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-61548531

US President Joe Biden has warned China is "flirting with danger" over Taiwan, and vowed to intervene militarily to protect the island if it is attacked.

Speaking in Japan, he appeared to contradict long-standing US policy in the region, although the White House insisted there had been no departure.

Mr Biden drew a parallel between Taiwan and Russia's invasion of Ukraine, prompting an angry rebuke from Beijing.

He is on his first tour of Asia as US president, visiting regional allies.

Mr Biden prefaced his remarks saying US policy toward Taiwan "has not changed". But his comments in Tokyo are the second time in recent months he has unequivocally stated the US would defend Taiwan if China attacked, in what has been seen as a change in tone.

The US has previously been vague on what it would do in such a situation.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

CAN WE FIGHT RUSSIA, CHINA and NORTH KOREA at the same time ?

Nothing really new actually as we've been at war with these 3 and few others for many years in some form or another.

Biden vows to defend Taiwan in apparent US policy shift

That was a big surprise to come out and say so in public given that the official policy for decades has been deliberate vagary. But, if we do nothing, then his critics claim he's weak so there's no "winning" (whatever that means) regardless of what actions are taken or not; only criticism exists from people w/o any real answers.

[robert.]

should be good for the economy.

[bob turner]

I wasn't kidding - I burn a boatload of leaded avgas. It is bad for the environment, and is a limited resource. I admit to being a bit selfish - I have no real need for such profligacy, having burned more jet fuel than 99% of the population ever will.
I agree with Hondo a bit - I lived through Reagan, both Bushes, and Trump, the same way he lived through Obama. But we are cut from different cloth. I think there are too many folks on the planet, and that we are polluting it beyond repair - and that I am a big part of that.
We may fix that soon - who knows?

But if I had my way, we really would be a democracy, with one vote counting as much as any other, regardless of wealth, race, or political leaning. At the moment, that would mean we would go liberal quickly -

If I had my way, the First Amendment would free us up from subsidizing any religion, and would leave us alone to visit porn parlors or whatever turns us on.

If I had my way, Private Equity would pay taxes the same way that schoolteachers and firefighters do . . .

If I had my way, health care would be a right, not a privilege (my spouse spent 45 minutes in the emergency room last month - $9,000 not including band aids or cotton swabs).

If I had my way, accepting two billion dollars from the Saudis weeks after leaving office would be a crime (it apparently is perfectly legal).

If I had my way, the University of California would be free, like it was when I went through (they even paid me in graduate school).

If I had my way, the Supreme Court would not be trashing the "right of privacy" cases.


But I don't have my way. What I was pointing out is exactly what Hondo pointed out - I will survive. He, I am guessing, and others like him, (still guessing) are free to believe that it is better that rural votes should count more than urban or coastal votes, and are free to advocate making voting more difficult for minority communities, and that the Electoral College is a great idea. The problem with that is the result will be an autocracy - something preferred by most folks on the planet, but historically not favored in the USA.
I will not survive the next Trump administration, but I am quite sure that I will still be burning leaded avgas during at least the first four years of that administration. My buddies will help me get in and out of the Stearman, I am sure.

Almost all of that is - Opinion.

[robert.]

If i had my way. The dems and repubs would invite me to their debate. As an independent minor party they are not required to invite me. I may not do well explaining myself with a pen. If you put me in a room filled with people. I’ll light it up.

[v8vega]

California and New York have had every gun law you could imagine for years, criminals don't pay any attention. What "sensible gun laws" does illegitimate Biden have in mind? Like a rabid dog that's his response, more gun laws that only affect the law abiding.

[v8vega]

Illegatamate Biden is always saying "in God's name, for God's sake" he doesn't know God. He is blaspheming.

[Neil]

A sensible gun law would not require the canceling of the second amendment. Simply make gun ownership illegal for all, except for members of recognized state or local militias, which was the intent of the original second amendment. This would keep guns out of the hands of individuals who are not screened (as are all military personnel) for mental illness, intellectual competence. If only adult, responsible, trained, sane individuals committed to public service (in a militia) were allowed to possess firearms, as intended by the second amendment, many of the recent monsters who easily purchased weapons would not have had access to them. The perpetrators of the Sandy Hook and yesterday's Uvalde horrors would not have had access to weapons, nor would the insane young man who perpetrated the Buffalo massacre. Almost none of these atrocities are committed by veterans or law enforcement personnel. Restricting ownership of handguns and long guns to those who have been screened and found fit for public service, as in a militia or law enforcement, would dramatically alter our society for the better without preventing responsible citizens from owning weapons for self defense or maintaining public order.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Illegatamate Biden is always saying "in God's name, for God's sake" he doesn't know God. He is blaspheming.

With amount of hate that you routinely express, your grasp of Christianity is less than none.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

A sensible gun law would not require the canceling of the second amendment. Simply make gun ownership illegal for all, except for members of recognized state or local militias, which was the intent of the original second amendment. This would keep guns out of the hands of individuals who are not screened (as are all military personnel) for mental illness, intellectual competence. If only adult, responsible, trained, sane individuals committed to public service (in a militia) were allowed to possess firearms, as intended by the second amendment, many of the recent monsters who easily purchased weapons would not have had access to them. The perpetrators of the Sandy Hook and yesterday's Uvalde horrors would not have had access to weapons, nor would the insane young man who perpetrated the Buffalo massacre. Almost none of these atrocities are committed by veterans or law enforcement personnel. Restricting ownership of handguns and long guns to those who have been screened and found fit for public service, as in a militia or law enforcement, would dramatically alter our society for the better without preventing responsible citizens from owning weapons for self defense or maintaining public order.

Entirely too rational......and you need a side bar for hunting which is a legitimate use.

[Neil]

Set up a screening procedure including mental status exam, references from those training the proposed hunter. It's not rocket science to know this would have screened out many if not most of the deranged individuals who possessed weapons with the sole purpose of killing other citizens. Requiring screening for sanity and training for owners of firearms is simply common sense and the responsible thing to do. It doesn't compromise anyone's rights except those who are lunatics and monsters, which is fine .