In case you are tempted to use that expression, this guy doesn't like it.
You have to work at producing a better cliche. Work, work, work!
Al Fin: "Cowboy Commentary", aka "Eat your veggies" The Flag banner is posted in order to defy those who would make patriotic symbols illegal or disreputable.
Saturday, October 27, 2018
Lee Smith Investigates: Rosenstein DOJ Threatens "Obstruction" Over Declassification Directive.
This links up the GOP Establishment with the Democrats in an attempt to remove Trump from office.
The article also deeply implies that the investigation was a hoax to begin with, and the point is to protect corrupt officials within the DOJ and elsewhere--- not to find "collusion". The way to protect the "investigation" is to charge obstruction. This is what I said from the very beginning of this sham.
It should be clear that Pelosi's attempt to downplay impeachment is just a ruse. If you support Trump, you must vote for the GOP to remain in both Houses of Congress, or otherwise, there will be an impeachment attempt. Since Rosenstein is supposedly a Republican, and since never Trumpers are in that group, it should not be relied upon just to keep the Senate. That is not good enough. For if you have enough never Trumpers in the Senate, they could still remove Trump.
Once again, if you support Trump, you must get out and vote GOP. Don't be fooled by these games.
The article also deeply implies that the investigation was a hoax to begin with, and the point is to protect corrupt officials within the DOJ and elsewhere--- not to find "collusion". The way to protect the "investigation" is to charge obstruction. This is what I said from the very beginning of this sham.
It should be clear that Pelosi's attempt to downplay impeachment is just a ruse. If you support Trump, you must vote for the GOP to remain in both Houses of Congress, or otherwise, there will be an impeachment attempt. Since Rosenstein is supposedly a Republican, and since never Trumpers are in that group, it should not be relied upon just to keep the Senate. That is not good enough. For if you have enough never Trumpers in the Senate, they could still remove Trump.
Once again, if you support Trump, you must get out and vote GOP. Don't be fooled by these games.
Lee Smith Investigates: Rosenstein DOJ Threatens "Obstruction" Over Declassification Directive... https://t.co/SsXtbaajqZ via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 27, 2018
Reichstag Fire during Hitler regime in Germany
Some folks are out there comparing the "bomb" threat as another Reichstag Fire. Let's review that historical incident for a moment, shall we?
The Reichstag Fire was said to have been arranged by the Nazis so that they could consolidate power around Adolf Hitler, who was just previously made chancellor. However, Hitler was not absolutely in charge yet. He could have been easily deposed by President Hindenberg.
The Nazis, in turn, accused a communist of starting the fire. The man they found was said to have been a patsy. Whether he was guilty of not isn't the point. The point is that the Nazis found a scapegoat for what was used as a pretext to suspend civil liberties. That is indeed what happened.
The suspension of civil liberties is what helped Hitler consolidate power, and to continue doing so over the next year or so, until Hindenberg died. When Hindenberg died, there was nobody left to oppose Hitler.
Now, let's turn to the modern situation here. If you are going to compare this to the Reichstag Fire, then let's be consistent. To do so, you would have to say that this suspect for the "bomb" scare, was the guy responsible. You have to claim a political connection to the act, and an intention to gain politically from it. On the basis of that, you would call for the suspension of civil liberties in order to consolidate your power. In other words, you have to blame the GOP and claim that the GOP had something to do with it. Or vice versa.
Is this the Reichstag Fire redux? Well, no. This isn't Weimar Germany, and the President isn't the Chancellor. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the suspension of civil liberties, unless it is martial law. Nothing like that has been proposed, nor is likely to be.
If anything, the ones who want to suspend any civil liberties are the Democrats. They want Trump to shut up! This "bomb" scare should not be a pretext for ending freedom of expression. I am quite sure Trump has no such intention, but I am not so sure about the Democrats. The Democrats seem to be using this for political advantage.
The guy who did this was the one responsible. Nobody made him do it. If you claim incitement because of legitimate political speech, you are getting close to what the Nazis did. If you are going to make the accusation, then you are going to have to prove the connections and intentions. That proof does not exist as of this time.
However, there is some attempts to gain politically from it before the election. That needs to stop.
The Reichstag Fire was said to have been arranged by the Nazis so that they could consolidate power around Adolf Hitler, who was just previously made chancellor. However, Hitler was not absolutely in charge yet. He could have been easily deposed by President Hindenberg.
The Nazis, in turn, accused a communist of starting the fire. The man they found was said to have been a patsy. Whether he was guilty of not isn't the point. The point is that the Nazis found a scapegoat for what was used as a pretext to suspend civil liberties. That is indeed what happened.
The suspension of civil liberties is what helped Hitler consolidate power, and to continue doing so over the next year or so, until Hindenberg died. When Hindenberg died, there was nobody left to oppose Hitler.
Now, let's turn to the modern situation here. If you are going to compare this to the Reichstag Fire, then let's be consistent. To do so, you would have to say that this suspect for the "bomb" scare, was the guy responsible. You have to claim a political connection to the act, and an intention to gain politically from it. On the basis of that, you would call for the suspension of civil liberties in order to consolidate your power. In other words, you have to blame the GOP and claim that the GOP had something to do with it. Or vice versa.
Is this the Reichstag Fire redux? Well, no. This isn't Weimar Germany, and the President isn't the Chancellor. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows for the suspension of civil liberties, unless it is martial law. Nothing like that has been proposed, nor is likely to be.
If anything, the ones who want to suspend any civil liberties are the Democrats. They want Trump to shut up! This "bomb" scare should not be a pretext for ending freedom of expression. I am quite sure Trump has no such intention, but I am not so sure about the Democrats. The Democrats seem to be using this for political advantage.
The guy who did this was the one responsible. Nobody made him do it. If you claim incitement because of legitimate political speech, you are getting close to what the Nazis did. If you are going to make the accusation, then you are going to have to prove the connections and intentions. That proof does not exist as of this time.
However, there is some attempts to gain politically from it before the election. That needs to stop.
"Bombs" weren't bombs
Updated:
10.27.18:
6:00 am:
After reading a bit about the suspect, just one comment: that this guy cannot be dismissed as a mere nutcase. That is all. More than that would be speculation, and I would rather not do that.
5:00 am:
The "bomber" has been apprehended. There has been only a limited amount of information about the guy as of yesterday, which was the last time I read the news on him. With limited information, there should be limited commentary, so for now, there won't be a lot to say about him. There is too much that we still don't know.
10:26.18:
The stuff in the bombs won't explode. The "devices" didn't have exploders. Therefore, they weren't bombs. Heck, you cannot even call them a device. It is just a prop that looks like a bomb.
You don't call a toy gun a gun. Don't call a fake bomb a bomb.
If it is a false flag deal, then will the Democrats apologize? Don't bet on it.
10.27.18:
6:00 am:
After reading a bit about the suspect, just one comment: that this guy cannot be dismissed as a mere nutcase. That is all. More than that would be speculation, and I would rather not do that.
5:00 am:
The "bomber" has been apprehended. There has been only a limited amount of information about the guy as of yesterday, which was the last time I read the news on him. With limited information, there should be limited commentary, so for now, there won't be a lot to say about him. There is too much that we still don't know.
10:26.18:
The stuff in the bombs won't explode. The "devices" didn't have exploders. Therefore, they weren't bombs. Heck, you cannot even call them a device. It is just a prop that looks like a bomb.
You don't call a toy gun a gun. Don't call a fake bomb a bomb.
If it is a false flag deal, then will the Democrats apologize? Don't bet on it.
Getting Close! FBI Has Images of the Bomb COURIER https://t.co/fYIqkE77ey— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 26, 2018
Thursday, October 25, 2018
Dire Straits: Water of Love
Forty years ago. Wow. I remember well when this came out. It really doesn't seem like it was that long ago.
This is rather well done, I must say.
Troops to border?
My trailer is parked close to a east west highway that is no more than 50 miles as the crow flies from a big base.
Last night I heard a lot of traffic that lasted for a while. It may have been enough to wake me up for a little while. It was maybe about 3 am.
What could that noise have been? Could it have been the deployment of US troops to the border?
Go west from here, and it is a long way. But it is long way south too. Texas is big, don't ya know.
Anyway, maybe it wasn't all that significant even if that is what it was. It wouldn't take much of a military strike to stop this, but then I don't think this is what it appears to be anyway. Nobody is actually walking the 1200 mile or so distance. Nope. It is a bunch of people taking a picture, and the media running with it. The mob gathers each day, and is probably a prearranged photo op. They take the picture each day a little closer to the border. Nobody is walking the whole time. If they were, they have to sleep outdoors? Ain't happening.
It is all a big circus for you to watch. The latest circus is the fake bombs. Fake bombs, fake crowds, fake rape accusations. Fake everything. Also Fake news. I hear CNN doesn't want to be called Fake news. Well, here's yours truly calling CNN fake news just because they don't like it. Fake news CNN. Nya, nya, nya-nya, nya!
We got soldier boys going to the border, yessiree Bob. Sorry to sound so cynical, but all of this fake stuff has that tendency.
Last night I heard a lot of traffic that lasted for a while. It may have been enough to wake me up for a little while. It was maybe about 3 am.
What could that noise have been? Could it have been the deployment of US troops to the border?
Go west from here, and it is a long way. But it is long way south too. Texas is big, don't ya know.
Anyway, maybe it wasn't all that significant even if that is what it was. It wouldn't take much of a military strike to stop this, but then I don't think this is what it appears to be anyway. Nobody is actually walking the 1200 mile or so distance. Nope. It is a bunch of people taking a picture, and the media running with it. The mob gathers each day, and is probably a prearranged photo op. They take the picture each day a little closer to the border. Nobody is walking the whole time. If they were, they have to sleep outdoors? Ain't happening.
It is all a big circus for you to watch. The latest circus is the fake bombs. Fake bombs, fake crowds, fake rape accusations. Fake everything. Also Fake news. I hear CNN doesn't want to be called Fake news. Well, here's yours truly calling CNN fake news just because they don't like it. Fake news CNN. Nya, nya, nya-nya, nya!
We got soldier boys going to the border, yessiree Bob. Sorry to sound so cynical, but all of this fake stuff has that tendency.
Everybody loves kumbaya, but we live in a real world. Wake up cupcake.
Once again, I am somewhat displeased to read Betsy's Page. A supposed conservative, or shall we say, a "moderate".
Of course we would all like everybody to get along. But there are people who need to be confronted.
It seems that many on the so-called "right" liked Ronald Reagan when he stood up to the Soviet Union. Yet, many of these same people cannot bring themselves to seeing that there is a principle involved. When someone acts aggressively, there is a need to respond.
You don't act like Dan Quayle, who said "that's was uncalled for, Senator", when Bentsen took a cheap shot at him. Frankly, it would have been satisfying to watch Dan Quayle walk across to Bentsen and punch him in the nose. Quayle was a gentleman, but that didn't cause him to win the debate. The Democrats made a mockery of Quayle from that point on.
But to punch out Bentsen would have been so uncivilized. When somebody breaks the bond of mutual consent that we need to live in a civilized society, and acts aggressively like Bentsen did, and which liberals do a lot of, then an aggressive response is necessary. Otherwise, you look weak. Weak people do not assume leadership positions. That is the real world.
But if everybody is nice, that sure would be nice. Yes, it would! But not everybody is nice. When the other side gets mean, you better be ready to defend yourself.
If Trump didn't defend himself, he would have been dismissed as a light weight, just like Quayle. It is necessary for him to do what he does because the left makes it necessary. Evidently, people like Betsy Newmark just don't get it.
The left uses aggression because they profit from it. Until there is a penalty for them, they will continue to do it. There is only one way to make them stop, and that is to respond in kind to their aggression.
That is why Trump is necessary.
Of course we would all like everybody to get along. But there are people who need to be confronted.
It seems that many on the so-called "right" liked Ronald Reagan when he stood up to the Soviet Union. Yet, many of these same people cannot bring themselves to seeing that there is a principle involved. When someone acts aggressively, there is a need to respond.
You don't act like Dan Quayle, who said "that's was uncalled for, Senator", when Bentsen took a cheap shot at him. Frankly, it would have been satisfying to watch Dan Quayle walk across to Bentsen and punch him in the nose. Quayle was a gentleman, but that didn't cause him to win the debate. The Democrats made a mockery of Quayle from that point on.
But to punch out Bentsen would have been so uncivilized. When somebody breaks the bond of mutual consent that we need to live in a civilized society, and acts aggressively like Bentsen did, and which liberals do a lot of, then an aggressive response is necessary. Otherwise, you look weak. Weak people do not assume leadership positions. That is the real world.
But if everybody is nice, that sure would be nice. Yes, it would! But not everybody is nice. When the other side gets mean, you better be ready to defend yourself.
If Trump didn't defend himself, he would have been dismissed as a light weight, just like Quayle. It is necessary for him to do what he does because the left makes it necessary. Evidently, people like Betsy Newmark just don't get it.
The left uses aggression because they profit from it. Until there is a penalty for them, they will continue to do it. There is only one way to make them stop, and that is to respond in kind to their aggression.
That is why Trump is necessary.
Wednesday, October 24, 2018
A small example of why I am suspicious of never Trumpers
She writes today that violence is infecting both right and left.
Where has that been demonstrated? Because of a bomb threat to a few Democrats? We don't know who did this yet. Yes, it might be a false flag operation, or it might not be. We don't know yet.
Until you have the facts of the matter, you don't jump to conclusions about who is responsible.
There have been times when there was an incident, like Gabby Giffords, in which the left blamed the right for it, when that turned out to be false. What if this one is too?
Democrat Gabby Giffords was shot by a guy who was not affiliated with the right, but GOP Congressman Scalise was shot by a guy definitely affiliated with the left. Could it be that this bomb threat is a way to try to draw some sort of equivalency, when there isn't one? The left is inciting violence-- see Hillary and Maxine Waters. The right is not, until you prove otherwise. Why jump to conclusions about the origin of this latest business until you have the proof?
But Newmark just jumps in and says it is a right winger who did it, and that makes it all even. Maybe Newmark wants to believe what the left says, and that makes me wonder if she is really on the "right" side.
Limbaugh had something on his show today about this. A little, but not a lot. Just saying here, as I have been critical of Limbaugh, that some of what he says sounds weak to me. It's almost as if he is also conceding that this was a conservative deal. Or that conservatives don't act like this.
I would agree that conservatives should not act like this, but just in case someone did, then what? The Democrats would act like Hillary or Maxine Waters, and justify it as righteous anger. But if the Democrats were really hit by a conservative like this, they would be dumbfounded. But that wouldn't stop them from accusing the conservatives of this in any case, because they have done so many times in the past.
If I were to make a movie comparison, the conservatives all too often act like George McFly in the Back to the Future movie, who couldn't stand up to the bully, Biff. Conservatives seem to get bullied all the time, but their response is all too often like Dan Quayle, when he got blasted in the VP debate back in 1988. You got to have a better response than this.
The so-called right are really no good at confrontations. Like George McFly here, they seem to act guilty, when they are not.
Where has that been demonstrated? Because of a bomb threat to a few Democrats? We don't know who did this yet. Yes, it might be a false flag operation, or it might not be. We don't know yet.
Until you have the facts of the matter, you don't jump to conclusions about who is responsible.
There have been times when there was an incident, like Gabby Giffords, in which the left blamed the right for it, when that turned out to be false. What if this one is too?
Democrat Gabby Giffords was shot by a guy who was not affiliated with the right, but GOP Congressman Scalise was shot by a guy definitely affiliated with the left. Could it be that this bomb threat is a way to try to draw some sort of equivalency, when there isn't one? The left is inciting violence-- see Hillary and Maxine Waters. The right is not, until you prove otherwise. Why jump to conclusions about the origin of this latest business until you have the proof?
But Newmark just jumps in and says it is a right winger who did it, and that makes it all even. Maybe Newmark wants to believe what the left says, and that makes me wonder if she is really on the "right" side.
Limbaugh had something on his show today about this. A little, but not a lot. Just saying here, as I have been critical of Limbaugh, that some of what he says sounds weak to me. It's almost as if he is also conceding that this was a conservative deal. Or that conservatives don't act like this.
I would agree that conservatives should not act like this, but just in case someone did, then what? The Democrats would act like Hillary or Maxine Waters, and justify it as righteous anger. But if the Democrats were really hit by a conservative like this, they would be dumbfounded. But that wouldn't stop them from accusing the conservatives of this in any case, because they have done so many times in the past.
If I were to make a movie comparison, the conservatives all too often act like George McFly in the Back to the Future movie, who couldn't stand up to the bully, Biff. Conservatives seem to get bullied all the time, but their response is all too often like Dan Quayle, when he got blasted in the VP debate back in 1988. You got to have a better response than this.
The so-called right are really no good at confrontations. Like George McFly here, they seem to act guilty, when they are not.
The latest circus
Updated:
10.24.18:
It really is a circus. Just consider the fact that it is impossible to go all that way in the time that they are talking about. It is simply too far. Now it is being reported that they are being transported on flat bed trucks.
It's all a show for the cameras.
original post 10.23.18:
There does appear to be a pattern here. There was the Kavanaugh hearings and now this. Actually, if you go back for the last two years or more, everything in the news these days is a circus.
The circus distracts you from the real issues. The real issue in the Kavanaugh circus was not the rape accusations, but who controls the courts. The rape accusation was a prop in order to distract people from what the real issue was.
If you go back to the previous two years, the Mueller investigation was a circus too. The real issue was who controlled the government. Same as the Kavanaugh confirmation circus.
Now we have this "migrant caravan" coming this way from Mexico. Once again, we have a distraction. The point of it all is to distract everyone from the real issue. The issue isn't their hardships. They are probably healthy and well fed people. They are not real refugees. This is no war down there. Mexico isn't doing that badly. There is no need to flood the US with all these people. The caravan is the equivalent of carnival barkers who are making a lot of noise about the show to come.
Consequently, there is a big crisis being built up. The whole point is to create an issue before the election so as to influence the outcome. You might even call it "collusion".
Mexico can stop this. The Central American countries could have stopped this. Of course, our own government can stop this. But the caravan continues, and they will arrive near election day. All of this is a big show for the voters. It is all meant to determine who will control the government.
The government? What government? Like Trump said, if there's no borders, there's no country. If they can do this, then what prevents them from overwhelming this country in the future? This is an aggressive act.
The left is destroying the very notion of a government in order to control it? It is an oxymoron. If they win with this, there will be a government all right. You don't cause chaos in order to govern chaos. There can be no government in the midst of chaos.
There has to be a resolution to this, and it will get ugly. That is why this circus isn't going to be fun like the previous ones. What emerges from the other side of this is going to be ugly. No matter who wins the election.
10.24.18:
It really is a circus. Just consider the fact that it is impossible to go all that way in the time that they are talking about. It is simply too far. Now it is being reported that they are being transported on flat bed trucks.
It's all a show for the cameras.
original post 10.23.18:
There does appear to be a pattern here. There was the Kavanaugh hearings and now this. Actually, if you go back for the last two years or more, everything in the news these days is a circus.
The circus distracts you from the real issues. The real issue in the Kavanaugh circus was not the rape accusations, but who controls the courts. The rape accusation was a prop in order to distract people from what the real issue was.
If you go back to the previous two years, the Mueller investigation was a circus too. The real issue was who controlled the government. Same as the Kavanaugh confirmation circus.
Now we have this "migrant caravan" coming this way from Mexico. Once again, we have a distraction. The point of it all is to distract everyone from the real issue. The issue isn't their hardships. They are probably healthy and well fed people. They are not real refugees. This is no war down there. Mexico isn't doing that badly. There is no need to flood the US with all these people. The caravan is the equivalent of carnival barkers who are making a lot of noise about the show to come.
Consequently, there is a big crisis being built up. The whole point is to create an issue before the election so as to influence the outcome. You might even call it "collusion".
Mexico can stop this. The Central American countries could have stopped this. Of course, our own government can stop this. But the caravan continues, and they will arrive near election day. All of this is a big show for the voters. It is all meant to determine who will control the government.
The government? What government? Like Trump said, if there's no borders, there's no country. If they can do this, then what prevents them from overwhelming this country in the future? This is an aggressive act.
The left is destroying the very notion of a government in order to control it? It is an oxymoron. If they win with this, there will be a government all right. You don't cause chaos in order to govern chaos. There can be no government in the midst of chaos.
There has to be a resolution to this, and it will get ugly. That is why this circus isn't going to be fun like the previous ones. What emerges from the other side of this is going to be ugly. No matter who wins the election.
Cow farts are going to do us in
Gotta stop eating that beef because of cow farts.
Well, I still like my burgers and I'm not gonna give 'em up no matter how hot it gets outside.
If Texas sinks into the Gulf of Mexico, that might be different. However, Galveston still looks safe to me when I went there a few years ago.
Well, I still like my burgers and I'm not gonna give 'em up no matter how hot it gets outside.
If Texas sinks into the Gulf of Mexico, that might be different. However, Galveston still looks safe to me when I went there a few years ago.
Monday, October 22, 2018
Methods and Tricks Used to Create and Perpetuate the Human-caused Global Warming Deception
Quote:
I quickly learned that the first thing you must do is question the false premise.
Seems to be a principle involved. The principle is that these people are allergic to the truth. Sprinkle the truth on them like sprinkling holy water on the devil.
Methods and Tricks Used to Create and Perpetuate the Human-caused Global Warming Deception https://t.co/IoKLvpYUgb via @WattsUpWithThat— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 22, 2018
Obligatory, 10.20.18
Updated,
10.22.18:
3:00 pm:
By the way, why should we care about this Khasoggi character? Because he was a reporter? If reporters won't hold Democrats accountable for harassing Trump supporters, then why should we care if one of theirs gets whacked?
It is a mistake to give a hoop about this guy, just like it was a mistake to give a hoop about Kavanaugh's accusers. Don't give them the time of day.
2:30 pm:
What did I tell you? The GOP Establishment types like to go after Trump types for fighting back, but then they won't tell the Democrats to clean up their own act.
They'll just whine about it. You have to do something about the double standard, because if you don't, you accept being second class.
If the Democrats think they have the right to harass GOP types, then when it happens to one of them, so "no comment". Why? You should not care about it until they do.
10.20.18:
It's past 8 pm, and no posts today.
It is not as if I'm not keeping up with the news, it's just that I don't know what to say about it.
One thing, maybe, is that Democrats are taking a real chance with this "incivility" schtick. I tell you that the GOP would never do something like that. No way. The GOP is always worried about stuff like that. They don't even like Trump doing tweets. There is no comparison between doing tweets and what the Dems are doing.
I know that there are those on the left who would argue the matter, but really. I cannot see several members of the House, and a former Presidential candidate saying that it is okay to be uncivil while out of power. The GOP runs away from stuff like this, they don't embrace it. Just look at how they treat Trump. Just for tweeting.
Maybe there is a method to their madness. However, if this nice guy approach doesn't work for the GOP, the electorate just might ratify political violence as okay. But that would not be okay. If you are a GOP'er in that case, would do you do about it? Just continue to sit back and take it? How can you justify civility when the electorate says they want political violence?
Dangerous stuff.
As for my calling for organization, I'll stand by it. There's no guarantee that the electorate is going to see things the GOP's way. These people may prefer the mob over jobs after all.
10.22.18:
3:00 pm:
By the way, why should we care about this Khasoggi character? Because he was a reporter? If reporters won't hold Democrats accountable for harassing Trump supporters, then why should we care if one of theirs gets whacked?
It is a mistake to give a hoop about this guy, just like it was a mistake to give a hoop about Kavanaugh's accusers. Don't give them the time of day.
2:30 pm:
What did I tell you? The GOP Establishment types like to go after Trump types for fighting back, but then they won't tell the Democrats to clean up their own act.
They'll just whine about it. You have to do something about the double standard, because if you don't, you accept being second class.
If the Democrats think they have the right to harass GOP types, then when it happens to one of them, so "no comment". Why? You should not care about it until they do.
10.20.18:
It's past 8 pm, and no posts today.
It is not as if I'm not keeping up with the news, it's just that I don't know what to say about it.
One thing, maybe, is that Democrats are taking a real chance with this "incivility" schtick. I tell you that the GOP would never do something like that. No way. The GOP is always worried about stuff like that. They don't even like Trump doing tweets. There is no comparison between doing tweets and what the Dems are doing.
I know that there are those on the left who would argue the matter, but really. I cannot see several members of the House, and a former Presidential candidate saying that it is okay to be uncivil while out of power. The GOP runs away from stuff like this, they don't embrace it. Just look at how they treat Trump. Just for tweeting.
Maybe there is a method to their madness. However, if this nice guy approach doesn't work for the GOP, the electorate just might ratify political violence as okay. But that would not be okay. If you are a GOP'er in that case, would do you do about it? Just continue to sit back and take it? How can you justify civility when the electorate says they want political violence?
Dangerous stuff.
As for my calling for organization, I'll stand by it. There's no guarantee that the electorate is going to see things the GOP's way. These people may prefer the mob over jobs after all.
The Logic of Revolution
Here's the intellectual basis of what the "civil war" is all about.
It is very well thought out, and well written. The conclusion is that nobody knows what is going to happen.
I agree. But I am pretty sure that there will be no civil war. If you don't have the organization for an army, how the heck are you going to fight one?
There are two possible outcomes
It is very well thought out, and well written. The conclusion is that nobody knows what is going to happen.
I agree. But I am pretty sure that there will be no civil war. If you don't have the organization for an army, how the heck are you going to fight one?
There are two possible outcomes
- The Trump faction wins the election, or
- His opponents win.
What Codevilla says is that the so-called resistance will continue fighting. However, do you surrender to them when they lose an election? On what basis do they continue "resistance"?
If you put it all on the election, you cannot very well disavow it. Both sides are putting it all on the election.
The people get to decide. A defeat of Trump means certain impeachment, and likely not a second term. A defeat of the resistance makes them plainly seditious. Not sure that they are prepared to go the whole route. I think they fold.
In any case, if you prepare for a war, there is less of a probability of one. But no guarantees.
But the so-called right is not organizing, so if they lose, they will give up.
No war is likely. If there is one, it won't last long no matter who wins this election.
Sunday, October 21, 2018
Twitter bans use of NPC meme
What the heck is "NPC". Here's a video that explains it.
Summary: Some people don't have an "inner dialogue". The cannot process certain things, and it makes them appear like robots. Or they begin insulting you, or what have you. Examples? He gives some. Just watch the video. I'm drawing a blank. bleep, bleep, bleep
NPC bad. Must ban now. Bleep, bleep, bleep.
Fetch this, Rover
This isn't something new, but all of a sudden, it caught my attention.
Only dogs can hear dog whistles. So, if a metaphorical dog whistle is "racist", then only racists can hear them.
Mob is a word that doesn't refer to race. Besides, if you are against lynch "mobs", then the use of mob should not be a problem. Mobs can come in any color.
Mob is just a word. Geez, you cannot even use the English language anymore without these bozos making an issue out of it.
How about "wag more and bark less"?
"If you can hear the whistle, then you're the dog."
Only dogs can hear dog whistles. So, if a metaphorical dog whistle is "racist", then only racists can hear them.
Mob is a word that doesn't refer to race. Besides, if you are against lynch "mobs", then the use of mob should not be a problem. Mobs can come in any color.
Mob is just a word. Geez, you cannot even use the English language anymore without these bozos making an issue out of it.
How about "wag more and bark less"?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)