Gonna barbeque your ass in molasses.
lol.
Saturday, January 26, 2019
Obligatory, 1.26.19
Well into the day, and no posts. What to write about?
I could write about the apparent cave in of the POTUS, but on second thought, maybe everybody should just wait and see what develops out of this. The usual thing is to make commentary upon it, but this may be a time to refrain from that.
Aside from that, there will be no further comment. Been reading a bit about it, though. Don't know exactly what to make of it.
Aside from the shutdown theater, Pelosi is saying curious things about Trump. Lately she said something to the effect that Putin has something on Trump. Let's see--- there has been over two years of this Russian collusion, and they have what evidence?????
You know that if they did have something, it would be all over the news. Especially back in 2016, when it could have made the difference in the outcome.
So, why is Pelosi saying this??? I am seeing it as a sign of weakness, perhaps. Maybe. Why would somebody continue repeating a story that has no basis in fact, but to bolster a belief in something that does not exist? Is it to reassure themselves that something does indeed exist, even though there is no evidence of it? Does not seem like a sign of strength to me.
It is also curious in light of the seemingly big victory she has supposedly won over Trump. If he is tamed, why keep repeating a discredited claim like Russian collusion?
Things are not always the way they appear. I would not be too disheartened by what has happened. This story is not over yet.
I could write about the apparent cave in of the POTUS, but on second thought, maybe everybody should just wait and see what develops out of this. The usual thing is to make commentary upon it, but this may be a time to refrain from that.
Aside from that, there will be no further comment. Been reading a bit about it, though. Don't know exactly what to make of it.
Aside from the shutdown theater, Pelosi is saying curious things about Trump. Lately she said something to the effect that Putin has something on Trump. Let's see--- there has been over two years of this Russian collusion, and they have what evidence?????
You know that if they did have something, it would be all over the news. Especially back in 2016, when it could have made the difference in the outcome.
So, why is Pelosi saying this??? I am seeing it as a sign of weakness, perhaps. Maybe. Why would somebody continue repeating a story that has no basis in fact, but to bolster a belief in something that does not exist? Is it to reassure themselves that something does indeed exist, even though there is no evidence of it? Does not seem like a sign of strength to me.
It is also curious in light of the seemingly big victory she has supposedly won over Trump. If he is tamed, why keep repeating a discredited claim like Russian collusion?
Things are not always the way they appear. I would not be too disheartened by what has happened. This story is not over yet.
Friday, January 25, 2019
Obligatory, 1.24.19
Updated:
1.25.19:
News just out that the government will be reopened for three weeks. Well, it looks like a cave. Unless he has another plan ( possible emergency declaration to build wall ), the whole thing is going to look like a fiasco.
He'd better have a plan that works. Or it is curtains.
1.24.19:
What to write about today?
The thing on so many minds these days is the shutdown. Supposedly, the polls are against Trump, so let's have a look at Rasmussen. He's at 44%. Although this is down a bit, it is not way down.
The poll also shows the Strongly Approve/ Disapprove at a minus 13 or 14. That may be significant in that it may represent the commitment of the opposition and the commitment of the POTUS' supporters. Trump's numbers here have always been in the red, but they are definitely in the red now.
Trump decided not to give the SOTU speech. This is an error. A speech is how he can get his point of view out to the public. It would be hard for the media to censor it, as well. Therefore, the propaganda edge is with the Democrats, and Trump ceded it to them.
Consequently, I fear that a cave in may be in the cards at some point. But the opposition doesn't have the necessary votes to override a veto, and the Strongly Disapprove faction doesn't have the majority of public opinion. The Congress Critters watch those polls, so the POTUS has to keep the polls within bounds, otherwise, there is a strong tendency to cave. Since he won't get out there and campaign on the wall issue, Trump may be ceding too much to Pelosi, and a cave in may be quivering on the horizon. Hope I am wrong.
In other matters, I will be doing a check up today. Maybe the doc will give my only six months to live. But that's okay. If I can't pay the bill, he'll give me six more. yuk yuk
Still working on my off grid, but there haven't been many posts on it. I'm at a thinking stage, which means not much is happening except between my ears. The doc can check that too, but I don't expect him to find anything.
One thing more. I think the Lynching Bee post was really apt for this situation. Sometimes, the crowd is wrong. You can try to win the crowd, but when the crowd is wrong, you have to be prepared to go against it. The other side has no problem with that. As for so-called conservatives, public opinion is often the excuse for a cop out.
1.25.19:
News just out that the government will be reopened for three weeks. Well, it looks like a cave. Unless he has another plan ( possible emergency declaration to build wall ), the whole thing is going to look like a fiasco.
He'd better have a plan that works. Or it is curtains.
1.24.19:
What to write about today?
The thing on so many minds these days is the shutdown. Supposedly, the polls are against Trump, so let's have a look at Rasmussen. He's at 44%. Although this is down a bit, it is not way down.
The poll also shows the Strongly Approve/ Disapprove at a minus 13 or 14. That may be significant in that it may represent the commitment of the opposition and the commitment of the POTUS' supporters. Trump's numbers here have always been in the red, but they are definitely in the red now.
Trump decided not to give the SOTU speech. This is an error. A speech is how he can get his point of view out to the public. It would be hard for the media to censor it, as well. Therefore, the propaganda edge is with the Democrats, and Trump ceded it to them.
Consequently, I fear that a cave in may be in the cards at some point. But the opposition doesn't have the necessary votes to override a veto, and the Strongly Disapprove faction doesn't have the majority of public opinion. The Congress Critters watch those polls, so the POTUS has to keep the polls within bounds, otherwise, there is a strong tendency to cave. Since he won't get out there and campaign on the wall issue, Trump may be ceding too much to Pelosi, and a cave in may be quivering on the horizon. Hope I am wrong.
In other matters, I will be doing a check up today. Maybe the doc will give my only six months to live. But that's okay. If I can't pay the bill, he'll give me six more. yuk yuk
Still working on my off grid, but there haven't been many posts on it. I'm at a thinking stage, which means not much is happening except between my ears. The doc can check that too, but I don't expect him to find anything.
One thing more. I think the Lynching Bee post was really apt for this situation. Sometimes, the crowd is wrong. You can try to win the crowd, but when the crowd is wrong, you have to be prepared to go against it. The other side has no problem with that. As for so-called conservatives, public opinion is often the excuse for a cop out.
Think for yourself
Easier said than done. Once upon a time, I thought I did think for myself. Then I learned that was not so. Even now, I think that I think for myself. But is it so?
It is a lot easier to let someone else do the thinking. It is all to easy to take the easy way out.
Simple Tests to Find Out Who is Doing Your Thinking for You - https://t.co/GEPmHIZljC via @Ammoland— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) January 25, 2019
POTUS can build the wall without Congress
According to this link, seen on Insty, the POTUS can obtain funds to build the wall without Congressional authorization of funds, nor does he have to declare an emergency.
Let's leave no stone unturned.
Let's leave no stone unturned.
Never Surrender --- Corey Hart
An eighties hit. It was number one in Canada, and number three in the US.
Check out the lyrics:
Just a little more time is all we're asking for
Cause just a little more time could open closing doors
Just a little uncertainty can bring you down
And nobody wants to know you now
And nobody wants to show you how
So if you're lost and on your own
You can never surrender
And if your path won't lead you home
You can never surrender
And when the night is cold and dark
You can see, you can see light
Cause no one can take away your right
To fight and never surrender
With a little perseverance you can get things done
Without the blind adherence that has conquered some
And nobody wants to know you now
And nobody wants to show you how
So if you're lost and on your own
You can never surrender
And if your path won't lead you home
You can never surrender
And when the night is cold and dark
You can see, you can see light
Cause no one can take away your right
To fight and never surrender
To never surrender
Sun Tsu said in the Art of War --- that if you don't know who you are, and you don't what who you are fighting, you have no chance to win. So, who are you fighting, and who are you????
A lesson in there for somebody... maybe...
Answer to the question is that they already have.
Does the name "William Jefferson Clinton" ring a bell?
Are Democratic Voters About to Break Bad?The American Spectator https://t.co/PS9l2Lb2cv— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) January 25, 2019
Thursday, January 24, 2019
Railroads say "what recession"?
Railroads Say Economy Still Growing at Steady Rate | Nebraska News | US News https://t.co/Qr2qBWcH4p— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) January 24, 2019
Wednesday, January 23, 2019
Recession a "done deal"?
Not so fast.
Every recession is accompanied by an inverted yield curve. The yield curve only partially inverted for a short time. Not every inversion leads to a recession, but every recession has an inverted yield curve.
They don't really know where the tipping point is. It takes too long for monetary policy to have an effect.
Yet, a lot of what he says sounds reasonable. I'm watching the yield curve for further evidence. Also, there is news about a downward trend in EXISTING home sales ( no word about NEW home sales). Anything else that pops up, I will check it out.
Every recession is accompanied by an inverted yield curve. The yield curve only partially inverted for a short time. Not every inversion leads to a recession, but every recession has an inverted yield curve.
They don't really know where the tipping point is. It takes too long for monetary policy to have an effect.
Yet, a lot of what he says sounds reasonable. I'm watching the yield curve for further evidence. Also, there is news about a downward trend in EXISTING home sales ( no word about NEW home sales). Anything else that pops up, I will check it out.
According to Financial Expert Peter Schiff a recession is a 'done deal' https://t.co/IxB6zl71z0— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) January 23, 2019
"Leave them kids alone."
When I read something like this, I think of Pink Floyd's song. "We don't need no thought control".
Were they on to something back then? By the way, those masks you see make them look like NPCs.
Were they on to something back then? By the way, those masks you see make them look like NPCs.
Tuesday, January 22, 2019
What is a conservative?
Big shitstorm over at Ace about the fake story of racism amongst some Catholic kids. BTW, I cannot link to stuff from that blog lately, or from other blogs. I am wondering if something is blocking that.
Anyway, the discussion seems to be about who is a real conservative or not. I refer to conservatives as "so-called" conservatives because I wonder if there is any such animal in this country anymore. For that matter, maybe no conservatives exist in the Western world anymore.
The language shifts so much, who knows what words really mean? The word "gay" used to mean happy. Now it means homosexuality. That shift seems to have come after 1970. I have a video that shows the usage of the word in the former way, and it was a TV show made at that time.
Was just looking at the pledge of allegiance story. Some Latino dude wants to change the pledge, and the guy isn't even a citizen. Heck, even George H. W. Bush ( POTUS 41) recited the pledge as an admonishment towards his opponent in the election of 1988. It was not well-taken then, but at least he supported the pledge. One might wonder how much longer the pledge will last, or for that matter, the rest of the country will last? All of this has happened during so-called conservative periods as well as liberal periods of recent history. If POTUS 41 was still alive, would he agree with the Latino guy? He did vote for Hillary even though he did seem concerned about her husband's character at one time. The point---even so-called conservatives are as changeable as the wind. What is conservative about that?
Some folks are asking some questions. Maybe some good will come out of it. Can conservatism be made to mean something again, or will it mean nothing after all?
Anyway, the discussion seems to be about who is a real conservative or not. I refer to conservatives as "so-called" conservatives because I wonder if there is any such animal in this country anymore. For that matter, maybe no conservatives exist in the Western world anymore.
The language shifts so much, who knows what words really mean? The word "gay" used to mean happy. Now it means homosexuality. That shift seems to have come after 1970. I have a video that shows the usage of the word in the former way, and it was a TV show made at that time.
Was just looking at the pledge of allegiance story. Some Latino dude wants to change the pledge, and the guy isn't even a citizen. Heck, even George H. W. Bush ( POTUS 41) recited the pledge as an admonishment towards his opponent in the election of 1988. It was not well-taken then, but at least he supported the pledge. One might wonder how much longer the pledge will last, or for that matter, the rest of the country will last? All of this has happened during so-called conservative periods as well as liberal periods of recent history. If POTUS 41 was still alive, would he agree with the Latino guy? He did vote for Hillary even though he did seem concerned about her husband's character at one time. The point---even so-called conservatives are as changeable as the wind. What is conservative about that?
Some folks are asking some questions. Maybe some good will come out of it. Can conservatism be made to mean something again, or will it mean nothing after all?
Mob gangs up on teen
Based upon the headline, I am going to say, without even reading it, that this is an example of the mobbism that I mentioned in the last post. ( I cannot bring up the post because the link is unresponsive. The headline is in Sefton's morning report on Ace. )
These people are "virtue signaling", but they haven't the virtue of courage. A mob picking on a kid should not be confused with anybody's notion of virtue.
These people are "virtue signaling", but they haven't the virtue of courage. A mob picking on a kid should not be confused with anybody's notion of virtue.
Monday, January 21, 2019
Trump's proposals could get passed into law
... and re-open the government.
It isn't total victory, but if the wall can get built, there would have been something gained. There are those who say that it isn't good enough.
I'm not sure because I haven't read it. It is probably not good enough, but it is good enough to defuse the issue in the near term. Maybe that is what matters most. In other words, it is kicking the can down the road.
Update:
Groan. It really looks like he is ready to give them everything. What is he thinking about???
It isn't total victory, but if the wall can get built, there would have been something gained. There are those who say that it isn't good enough.
I'm not sure because I haven't read it. It is probably not good enough, but it is good enough to defuse the issue in the near term. Maybe that is what matters most. In other words, it is kicking the can down the road.
Trump Budget Compromise Opposed by Left and Right — But Could Pass https://t.co/sCrqeygq4d— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) January 21, 2019
Update:
Groan. It really looks like he is ready to give them everything. What is he thinking about???
New 'Bigger Deal': Trump Indicates He Would Grant ‘Amnesty’ to https://t.co/v6tFnv8wr3 via @cnsnews— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) January 21, 2019
Why tax the rich?
There seems to be a movement out there that seeks to raise taxes because of alleged inequality.
There probably wouldn't need to be such a tax if corporations were taxed instead. Yet, there is probably a lot of resistance, especially on the "right", for such taxes.
Some folks like to define capitalism in order to accommodate corporations, but corporations are just another form of collectivism. Indeed, you could call it collectivism for the rich.
Rather than there be collectivism of any kind, just simply tax corporations. It doesn't impede capitalism, if capitalism refers to the right to own property and to make a profit. In order to keep it a capitalist system, simply tolerate the corporations. Don't drive them out of business-- but rather, just regulate them. It would be consistent with the original intent of the US Constitution. The US Constitution originally banned income taxes because that is a "capitation" tax.
Individuals are less likely to impose inequality as corporations do. It is the nature of an activity, which is collective action, that imposes the most inequality. Collective action on behalf the left, or on the right, delivers just as much inequality in their results. If equality is the goal, then taxing corporations is the way to go. Leave the individual alone. Individuals acting alone cannot be all that unequal.
There probably wouldn't need to be such a tax if corporations were taxed instead. Yet, there is probably a lot of resistance, especially on the "right", for such taxes.
Some folks like to define capitalism in order to accommodate corporations, but corporations are just another form of collectivism. Indeed, you could call it collectivism for the rich.
Rather than there be collectivism of any kind, just simply tax corporations. It doesn't impede capitalism, if capitalism refers to the right to own property and to make a profit. In order to keep it a capitalist system, simply tolerate the corporations. Don't drive them out of business-- but rather, just regulate them. It would be consistent with the original intent of the US Constitution. The US Constitution originally banned income taxes because that is a "capitation" tax.
Individuals are less likely to impose inequality as corporations do. It is the nature of an activity, which is collective action, that imposes the most inequality. Collective action on behalf the left, or on the right, delivers just as much inequality in their results. If equality is the goal, then taxing corporations is the way to go. Leave the individual alone. Individuals acting alone cannot be all that unequal.
Sunday, January 20, 2019
Fake news for a fake culture
Some big time fake news stories have been busted this weekend. Just shows to go ya' that these people rely upon the fake for their very existence.
If truth guided them, our culture would have a very different look and feel to it.
Some folks are having to stop themselves before they fall for the latest Bee Ess fake new story.
Better late than never. As for "never", maybe those never Trumpers can get a clue.
If truth guided them, our culture would have a very different look and feel to it.
Some folks are having to stop themselves before they fall for the latest Bee Ess fake new story.
Better late than never. As for "never", maybe those never Trumpers can get a clue.
Some say that this latest fake story may make them ....
Respectfully suggest “BuzzFeed” change its name to “RoadKill”— Ann Coulter (@AnnCoulter) January 19, 2019
But they'll keep going. These people live on the fake.
Interesting thesis
Thoughtful presentation.
Does being a Christian make you "stupid" & anti-science like militant atheists like to claim? It's actually the opposite, @RoamingMil says.— BlazeTV (@BlazeTV) January 18, 2019
"Being a Christian makes science all the more important because it's how we understand how God has put together our entire... universe." pic.twitter.com/dGGTIk35uX
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)