This needs to be explained over and over again, and maybe people will finally get it. One can always hope, but it seems like a thankless and impossible task sometimes.
I mentioned in a recent post about the dialectic. Once you start self-identifying as a right winger, you fall into the trap of the dialectic. Ronald Reagan didn't do this. He explicitly spoke against it. Yet, here you have famous champions of Reagan, Rush Limbaugh, claiming himself to be on the right.
I'm sorry, but this is just so foolish. An example of why this works so badly against conservatism is this New Zealand situation. Read this, and see how the lefties ( I call them that because they embrace the dialectic. It is central to their ideology. ) utilize the self-described "eco-fascist". Now, the lefties are trying to link Trump and conservatives to the shooter in New Zealand. If there is anything more stupid and evil than this, it is the stupidity of those who claim to be conservatives, who put them into such a position as this in the first place by identifying with the right wing.
Whether or not the shooter identified with the right is not the issue. The issue is the dialectic. If conservatives identify with the dialectic, they might as well be leftists. What I am referring to in general is the Hegelian philosophy, as applied by the Marxists. Why use that, for goodness sake, if you are conservative? Therefore, either many conservatives don't know what they are saying when they identify with the right wing, or they are lying about being conservative. Because right wing identity invariably takes you toward socialism and communism.
This is why I call them "so-called conservatives". They don't understand something as basic as this, how can be possibly be of any use? If you have any doubts about what I wrote, read this. It is littered with left, middle, right dialectical materialism that is taking us towards socialism.
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, March 16, 2019
Radicalization & Degeneration | The American Conservative
This is going to get linked to because it attempts to explain, without going into minute detail, who and what this Christchurch shooter was all about.
So, what is my reaction? The shooter doesn't like that Christianity is being overwhelmed in Europe. But, does the shooter even know much about what Christianity really is? How then, do you defend what you claim to care about, when you do not understand it? I would wager that the critics, and this misguided "supporter", understand little, if anything, about what Christianity really is.
He did more damage to Christianity by his misguided "defense" than if he did nothing at all, and let the current trends continue as they are.
He calls himself an "eco-fascist". Sorry, but that seems to be the problem, not the solution.
The shooter is a very confused young man. He will be exploited in a manner not unlike what he anticipated. A method in the madness? Perhaps. But that seemed to be happening without him.
So, what is my reaction? The shooter doesn't like that Christianity is being overwhelmed in Europe. But, does the shooter even know much about what Christianity really is? How then, do you defend what you claim to care about, when you do not understand it? I would wager that the critics, and this misguided "supporter", understand little, if anything, about what Christianity really is.
He did more damage to Christianity by his misguided "defense" than if he did nothing at all, and let the current trends continue as they are.
He calls himself an "eco-fascist". Sorry, but that seems to be the problem, not the solution.
The shooter is a very confused young man. He will be exploited in a manner not unlike what he anticipated. A method in the madness? Perhaps. But that seemed to be happening without him.
Radicalization & Degeneration | The American Conservative https://t.co/3Jrwn42LOB via @amconmag— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 16, 2019
Something that I notice.
This pattern seems to happen over and over. When the rhetoric here gets a bit hot, people leave.
Well, my answer to that is, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. A little fur must fly from time to time.
In the old days, say the eighteenth and nineteenth century, when dudes got crosswise with each other, they could have a duel. The question of honor was being questioned, so the only answer may have been on the field of honor. This is how Alexander Hamilton met his fate at the hands of Aaron Burr.
Aaron Burr may have been seen as the bad guy, the Hamilton said some stuff that he should not have said. He went too far.
The kind of things happening today would cause duels in those times. The point? Where is the indignation on the so-called conservative side? Why do they sit there and let themselves be slandered and libeled without any consequence for the perpetrators?
Are we really civilized to allow this kind of thing? Or is there another explanation? Not advocating that we bring back duels, but this kind of thing must not be allowed to go unanswered.
Law suits? Well, I don't know. Those really don't address it well enough.
Well, my answer to that is, if you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen. A little fur must fly from time to time.
In the old days, say the eighteenth and nineteenth century, when dudes got crosswise with each other, they could have a duel. The question of honor was being questioned, so the only answer may have been on the field of honor. This is how Alexander Hamilton met his fate at the hands of Aaron Burr.
Aaron Burr may have been seen as the bad guy, the Hamilton said some stuff that he should not have said. He went too far.
The kind of things happening today would cause duels in those times. The point? Where is the indignation on the so-called conservative side? Why do they sit there and let themselves be slandered and libeled without any consequence for the perpetrators?
Are we really civilized to allow this kind of thing? Or is there another explanation? Not advocating that we bring back duels, but this kind of thing must not be allowed to go unanswered.
Law suits? Well, I don't know. Those really don't address it well enough.
Friday, March 15, 2019
Democrats blame Trump for New Zealand
What a joke. The guy sounds like a Democrat, and they are blaming Trump.
He calls himself an eco-fascist, this shooter. Hello, Green New Deal! Sounds like what they want to do here. Hello, AOC. Hello, Weather Undeground. Hello, Bill Ayers. Hello, Barack Hussein Obama.
I also heard that the guy who stopped it had a gun. They've got strict gun control in New Zealand. If more guys had guns over there, this guy doesn't get far with his idea.
I can say more, but as usual, it is beating a dead horse. The Democrats are blaming everybody for the problems they cause themselves. Why listen to these wackos?
He calls himself an eco-fascist, this shooter. Hello, Green New Deal! Sounds like what they want to do here. Hello, AOC. Hello, Weather Undeground. Hello, Bill Ayers. Hello, Barack Hussein Obama.
I also heard that the guy who stopped it had a gun. They've got strict gun control in New Zealand. If more guys had guns over there, this guy doesn't get far with his idea.
I can say more, but as usual, it is beating a dead horse. The Democrats are blaming everybody for the problems they cause themselves. Why listen to these wackos?
How do you evaluate this statement?
A solar panel can split water into hydrogen at a rate of 250 liters of hydrogen per day.
Sounds impressive, yes? Well, let's take a look at what that really means. According to the gas laws, 22.4 liters equals 1 mole at standard temperature and pressure. Therefore, 250/22.4 moles of hydrogen gas. Running the arithmetic out at 2 grams per mole equals 22 grams of hydrogen. A kilogram has about the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline, or so I have heard. How much more to reach that energy level? 1000 gram/ 22 grams equals nearly 45 days to make the energy equivalent to a gallon of gasoline.
Doesn't sound that impressive. Indeed, no matter how efficient you make solar cells, you won't improve this by all that much.
Not very impressive. But I am sure the greenies will love the idea. Anything stupid and impractical is right up their alley.
Sounds impressive, yes? Well, let's take a look at what that really means. According to the gas laws, 22.4 liters equals 1 mole at standard temperature and pressure. Therefore, 250/22.4 moles of hydrogen gas. Running the arithmetic out at 2 grams per mole equals 22 grams of hydrogen. A kilogram has about the energy of 1 gallon of gasoline, or so I have heard. How much more to reach that energy level? 1000 gram/ 22 grams equals nearly 45 days to make the energy equivalent to a gallon of gasoline.
Doesn't sound that impressive. Indeed, no matter how efficient you make solar cells, you won't improve this by all that much.
Not very impressive. But I am sure the greenies will love the idea. Anything stupid and impractical is right up their alley.
Weakly Standard
Things got so bad there that they had to shut down. Now they are at a new never Trump gig known as the Bulwark.
The Bulwark name is a strange name for them, since they wish to combine with the left to destroy this country. Bulwark for who?
They are nicknamed "cabin boys", I suppose as an insult. Cabin boys are servants of officers on a ship. That means that they are servile weaklings. Perhaps it implies that they even take it up the ass for their bosses, the lefties.
Others call them "cucks", meaning the husband of an unfaithful wife. That is too generous for them.
I think that they are plain old traitors. These are the types that pretend to be with you, but work against you. The only honest thing these jackals have done is come out in the open and show who and what they really are. Cicero had something to say about this type.
When Cabin Boys Attack https://t.co/TirUWhNueI— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 15, 2019
Thursday, March 14, 2019
On the other hand...
...some good news.
Drum roll please...
In the video at the link provided above, the term "fishing expedition" was brought up. Well, if that could be expanded into the entirety of this Mewler Probe, then we'd be cooking.
Update a little later...
5:27 Pm:
More good news... It's good news because it came from a source that was probably not that thrilled with Trump in 2016. If it catches on, it is truly good news indeed.
Drum roll please...
Scoop Confirmed: Barr gives Weissman the BOOT - Barr is fighting Mueller's fake probe.— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 14, 2019
https://t.co/1JwzRgsGJW
In the video at the link provided above, the term "fishing expedition" was brought up. Well, if that could be expanded into the entirety of this Mewler Probe, then we'd be cooking.
Update a little later...
5:27 Pm:
More good news... It's good news because it came from a source that was probably not that thrilled with Trump in 2016. If it catches on, it is truly good news indeed.
It’s Time For Conservatives To Choose: Fight Back Or Surrender https://t.co/eYIbokPrmT— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 14, 2019
Tough talk, but who will listen?
Updated ( 3.14.19):
2:00 pm:
No transcendent purpose, he says. What does he mean? Let's look at a definition for that word
One of my teachers said to the class I was in that "a scientist is a seeker of truth". If you are true to that definition of science, then that's something, wouldn't you say?
Who speaks for science, though? I tell you what. If you let the politicians get hold of science like they have, then you get the AGW, Limits to Growth heresy. It is a heresy because it is not based upon truth. If it were based upon an honest search for truth, they wouldn't punish dissent like they do. Get politics out of it, and science has a chance.
If scientists no longer seek the truth, they are no longer scientists. But if you are a scientist, how can you be in conflict with what Jesus said?
The next morning...
I watched this again. The link to this was from a Free Republic post. That is how I found this video. I agreed with it, nearly word for word. However, at the very end, he said something to the effect that nothing can be done, that all civilizations die off. One comment in the Free Republic said that this video was defeatist.
Is it defeatist, then? What can you do when nobody will step up to the plate and stop this madness?
You can do nothing as well, I suppose. Here's the problem. If you just talk, and merely hope, that your talk is going to change the outcome, then you can be defeated when nobody will listen.
At that point, what do you do? Give up, or find some other way? If you won't give up, then what?
In Europe, they have the yellow vest movement. But here, we still have our guns. Not for much longer if they have their way. Am I suggesting violence?
We have the right to keep and bear arms. The left doesn't give a flip about this right, or any other of our rights. If we won't defend those rights, then the left has won already.
All this dude is doing is saying that nobody will fight for their own rights, and so they have lost already. The rest is inevitable.
You cannot speak without the left trying to shut you up. You cannot arm yourself without the left trying to stop that. Those are rights that they cannot take away legally. It goes on and on. The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights says no unreasonable searches and seizures. But we have a Mueller investigation that had no probable cause. The unreasonable search and seizures continue anyway. According to the US Constitution, the Mueller investigation was illegal. Nothing is done to stop it. One by one, all of the rights in the Bill of Rights, are being taken away. Nobody does anything about that.
The very existence of this country is being threatened. The law of the land says that we have a border, and that border is to be defended. It is the law. But JUDGES are overturning the enforcement of those laws. Pretty soon, there will be no country. But nobody does anything about that. Those that do are being investigated without probable cause ( Trump ). Get the picture?
We have an Insurrection, but we have a people that have no interest in stopping it. How can there be anything else but a collapse?
Merely speaking the truth is not defeatist. Acknowledging the truth, and not doing anything about it is defeatist.
3.13.19:
Can anything be done? Maybe not. Civilizations die off like people die off.
2:00 pm:
No transcendent purpose, he says. What does he mean? Let's look at a definition for that word
beyond or above the range of normal or merely physical human experienceTry this, then:
Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."---- John 14:6Mere superstition, perhaps?
One of my teachers said to the class I was in that "a scientist is a seeker of truth". If you are true to that definition of science, then that's something, wouldn't you say?
Who speaks for science, though? I tell you what. If you let the politicians get hold of science like they have, then you get the AGW, Limits to Growth heresy. It is a heresy because it is not based upon truth. If it were based upon an honest search for truth, they wouldn't punish dissent like they do. Get politics out of it, and science has a chance.
If scientists no longer seek the truth, they are no longer scientists. But if you are a scientist, how can you be in conflict with what Jesus said?
The next morning...
I watched this again. The link to this was from a Free Republic post. That is how I found this video. I agreed with it, nearly word for word. However, at the very end, he said something to the effect that nothing can be done, that all civilizations die off. One comment in the Free Republic said that this video was defeatist.
Is it defeatist, then? What can you do when nobody will step up to the plate and stop this madness?
You can do nothing as well, I suppose. Here's the problem. If you just talk, and merely hope, that your talk is going to change the outcome, then you can be defeated when nobody will listen.
At that point, what do you do? Give up, or find some other way? If you won't give up, then what?
In Europe, they have the yellow vest movement. But here, we still have our guns. Not for much longer if they have their way. Am I suggesting violence?
We have the right to keep and bear arms. The left doesn't give a flip about this right, or any other of our rights. If we won't defend those rights, then the left has won already.
All this dude is doing is saying that nobody will fight for their own rights, and so they have lost already. The rest is inevitable.
You cannot speak without the left trying to shut you up. You cannot arm yourself without the left trying to stop that. Those are rights that they cannot take away legally. It goes on and on. The Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights says no unreasonable searches and seizures. But we have a Mueller investigation that had no probable cause. The unreasonable search and seizures continue anyway. According to the US Constitution, the Mueller investigation was illegal. Nothing is done to stop it. One by one, all of the rights in the Bill of Rights, are being taken away. Nobody does anything about that.
The very existence of this country is being threatened. The law of the land says that we have a border, and that border is to be defended. It is the law. But JUDGES are overturning the enforcement of those laws. Pretty soon, there will be no country. But nobody does anything about that. Those that do are being investigated without probable cause ( Trump ). Get the picture?
We have an Insurrection, but we have a people that have no interest in stopping it. How can there be anything else but a collapse?
Merely speaking the truth is not defeatist. Acknowledging the truth, and not doing anything about it is defeatist.
3.13.19:
Can anything be done? Maybe not. Civilizations die off like people die off.
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Things are not looking good
I am already finished with my planning session. Back to blogging, I suppose.
Things are not looking good, the news seems to say. All across the board, the same conditions apply as always. Nothing is really changing. If anything, things are getting worse.
Nothing is being done to address any of this, either. The same methods, the same excuses, and likely, the same bad results.
Nobody seems willing to step up to the plate and deal with this as it should be dealt with. How is that? Everyone should know the left's game plan. How come nobody seems willing to deal with that in an effective way?
Maybe that is why I go back to planning. There's really nothing here to do.
Things are not looking good, the news seems to say. All across the board, the same conditions apply as always. Nothing is really changing. If anything, things are getting worse.
Nothing is being done to address any of this, either. The same methods, the same excuses, and likely, the same bad results.
Nobody seems willing to step up to the plate and deal with this as it should be dealt with. How is that? Everyone should know the left's game plan. How come nobody seems willing to deal with that in an effective way?
Maybe that is why I go back to planning. There's really nothing here to do.
Obligatory, 3.13.19
This will be a short post to disclose that it may be a light posting kind of day.
Nothing is wrong, and nothing is going on. I think I may do some planning for my off-grid project today. That would make it a paper and pencil kind of day, not a blogging kind of day.
Perhaps I will get around to posting something later. As of now, I think I'd rather spend some time on other things.
Nothing is wrong, and nothing is going on. I think I may do some planning for my off-grid project today. That would make it a paper and pencil kind of day, not a blogging kind of day.
Perhaps I will get around to posting something later. As of now, I think I'd rather spend some time on other things.
Tuesday, March 12, 2019
Dinesh D'Souza
Updated
Posted yesterday, 3.11.19:
3.12.19:
After a second viewing ( most of it , but not all ), I pretty much get it. D'Souza does get into the weeds a bit, at times. Overall, it is a strong movie.
People need to understand what they are dealing with. The left is out to break this country, and Obama was perfect towards that end. Here was a guy who could sell himself as an American, but was intent upon destroying it.
Obama's mother was anti-American. That is why she married two different guys who weren't American. She didn't like her own country very much. How could Obama help to be anything but anti-American himself?
When Obama's mother's second husband became more westernized, she became disappointed. You people need to understand this. There are people amongst us who are not loyal.
3.11.19:
Just watched his movie "2016", which was really about the 2012 election.
I didn't watch it back then because I already knew what Obama was. Frankly, how many really want to know what the guy is? Also, there was an entire industry built around the motivation of keeping the identity of this guy a big secret.
That is to say, even though this movie does have a lot to say about who Obama is, it seems to fall on deaf ears because too many don't really want to know.
Yet, we spend two years chasing the "collusion" phantom, looking for a monster that doesn't exist. Talking about a country with its head up its ass, that's the America of 2019.
The Wikipedia entry on D'Souza is a case in point. I checked out some of their supporting links. They say he is a "conspiracy theorist", but show no hard evidence of that. Besides, if it is indeed a conspiracy, so what? The thing that people should be interested in is whether or not these things were true or false. Like I said, too few people really want to know.
I think he did a good job with the flick. However, at the end, he may have gotten a bit in the weeds with the deficit spending discussion. It took away something from the discussion. But I may be hasty in that judgment. I stopped watching it with a few minutes left. I will go back and change this judgment if a change is warranted.
Posted yesterday, 3.11.19:
3.12.19:
After a second viewing ( most of it , but not all ), I pretty much get it. D'Souza does get into the weeds a bit, at times. Overall, it is a strong movie.
People need to understand what they are dealing with. The left is out to break this country, and Obama was perfect towards that end. Here was a guy who could sell himself as an American, but was intent upon destroying it.
Obama's mother was anti-American. That is why she married two different guys who weren't American. She didn't like her own country very much. How could Obama help to be anything but anti-American himself?
When Obama's mother's second husband became more westernized, she became disappointed. You people need to understand this. There are people amongst us who are not loyal.
3.11.19:
Just watched his movie "2016", which was really about the 2012 election.
I didn't watch it back then because I already knew what Obama was. Frankly, how many really want to know what the guy is? Also, there was an entire industry built around the motivation of keeping the identity of this guy a big secret.
That is to say, even though this movie does have a lot to say about who Obama is, it seems to fall on deaf ears because too many don't really want to know.
Yet, we spend two years chasing the "collusion" phantom, looking for a monster that doesn't exist. Talking about a country with its head up its ass, that's the America of 2019.
The Wikipedia entry on D'Souza is a case in point. I checked out some of their supporting links. They say he is a "conspiracy theorist", but show no hard evidence of that. Besides, if it is indeed a conspiracy, so what? The thing that people should be interested in is whether or not these things were true or false. Like I said, too few people really want to know.
I think he did a good job with the flick. However, at the end, he may have gotten a bit in the weeds with the deficit spending discussion. It took away something from the discussion. But I may be hasty in that judgment. I stopped watching it with a few minutes left. I will go back and change this judgment if a change is warranted.
Tucker Carlson BLASTS Do-Nothing GOP "Pretend" Party
Comment:
Now that I have unlimited data, I can watch these videos. This one was posted on the last refuge blog. As for what Tucker Carlson says, I hope that it is true, and he is not faking us all out.
(This here is the story that Carlson is responding to. It is not my intention to put the approval stamp on everything he says, but the left tries to shut down its opposition, and this is how they do it.)
Carlson goes after the pretenders amongst the GOP. People like Ann Coulter go after the POTUS, when Trump has to fight his own party as much as he does the Democrats. It is nice to see that someone goes after the pretenders of all stripes.
Now that I have unlimited data, I can watch these videos. This one was posted on the last refuge blog. As for what Tucker Carlson says, I hope that it is true, and he is not faking us all out.
(This here is the story that Carlson is responding to. It is not my intention to put the approval stamp on everything he says, but the left tries to shut down its opposition, and this is how they do it.)
Carlson goes after the pretenders amongst the GOP. People like Ann Coulter go after the POTUS, when Trump has to fight his own party as much as he does the Democrats. It is nice to see that someone goes after the pretenders of all stripes.
Tucker Carlson BLASTS Do-Nothing GOP "Pretend" Party for Bowing to Liber... https://t.co/RtGNfFQQYg via @YouTube— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 12, 2019
Monday, March 11, 2019
Gospel of John
Something got my attention when I listened to Barnhardt podcast. She said something to the effect that the church is demon possessed, or something close to that. ( pardon me if I got that wrong, but it sounded like that).
It sounded like John 8:39 - 44. Imagine some very self-righteous people being called devils, and you get the picture. What did they do? They were going to stone Jesus then and there, but he "hid himself" in the Temple.
Let's get back to our current time, and compare it with how liberals act when they are criticized in their own "temples", so to speak. Do they not get violent?
By the way, I have mentioned the Gospel of John several times on this blog. I used the search tool and found out that it was a lot more than I could remember. After all, that is why the tool is there. I want to see what I have written before, and there it is. I got nearly twenty hits on that phrase.
Furthermore, I recall seeing ( recently, but I cannot cite where ) that the Apostle John ran away from deceptive people. He couldn't get away fast enough.
Truth is a very strong anti-dote for evil. But evil hates the truth. It is dangerous to even say the truth about an evil person to his face.
There is some powerful stuff in that podcast. When you have the "anti-Pope" being accused of being a party to murder, that is pretty powerful stuff. However, I wrote earlier today that people today don't even want to know the truth. What is more dangerous then, speaking the truth, or not seeing the truth at all? If a piano was about to fall on your head, wouldn't you like to know it, so you could step out of the way?
Wouldn't you like to know if your "Pope" is a murderer or not? Wouldn't you like to know if your President hates the country he leads ( this is Obama, not Trump )? Why would you NOT want to know this? Wouldn't it be better to "see the light" than to be blind?
Update ( a little later... ):
One more thing... Barnhardt says that there was a witness to all of the wrongful behavior of this anti-Pope. This witness isn't considered credible by the news media because.... she was a prostitute. The witness was found dead under suspicious circumstances... Let's see... Is Stormy Daniels credible, then???? If the morality of a person is in question, then why run with Stormy Daniels' story????
To me, this means that the media cares nothing for the truth. After all, a blockbuster story like that should be of interest to them, but strangely enough, it isn't. Why is that?
It sounded like John 8:39 - 44. Imagine some very self-righteous people being called devils, and you get the picture. What did they do? They were going to stone Jesus then and there, but he "hid himself" in the Temple.
Let's get back to our current time, and compare it with how liberals act when they are criticized in their own "temples", so to speak. Do they not get violent?
By the way, I have mentioned the Gospel of John several times on this blog. I used the search tool and found out that it was a lot more than I could remember. After all, that is why the tool is there. I want to see what I have written before, and there it is. I got nearly twenty hits on that phrase.
Furthermore, I recall seeing ( recently, but I cannot cite where ) that the Apostle John ran away from deceptive people. He couldn't get away fast enough.
Truth is a very strong anti-dote for evil. But evil hates the truth. It is dangerous to even say the truth about an evil person to his face.
There is some powerful stuff in that podcast. When you have the "anti-Pope" being accused of being a party to murder, that is pretty powerful stuff. However, I wrote earlier today that people today don't even want to know the truth. What is more dangerous then, speaking the truth, or not seeing the truth at all? If a piano was about to fall on your head, wouldn't you like to know it, so you could step out of the way?
Wouldn't you like to know if your "Pope" is a murderer or not? Wouldn't you like to know if your President hates the country he leads ( this is Obama, not Trump )? Why would you NOT want to know this? Wouldn't it be better to "see the light" than to be blind?
Update ( a little later... ):
One more thing... Barnhardt says that there was a witness to all of the wrongful behavior of this anti-Pope. This witness isn't considered credible by the news media because.... she was a prostitute. The witness was found dead under suspicious circumstances... Let's see... Is Stormy Daniels credible, then???? If the morality of a person is in question, then why run with Stormy Daniels' story????
To me, this means that the media cares nothing for the truth. After all, a blockbuster story like that should be of interest to them, but strangely enough, it isn't. Why is that?
One reason capitalism is superior to socialism
AOC hates capitalism. She says it's no good. If socialism is better, then please explain this...
The US government is trying to build the SLS rocket, and it is costing a fortune. SpaceX is running rings around Uncle Sam with their reusable rockets.
Why did Kennedy propose the Moon program? To prove that capitalism was superior. Even with a less than capitalistic effort, America still won that race.
AOC would take this country backward. So-called "progressives" aren't interested much in progress, but something else.
Dragon successfully splashes down in Atlantic https://t.co/l2MtmvNklr— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 11, 2019
The US government is trying to build the SLS rocket, and it is costing a fortune. SpaceX is running rings around Uncle Sam with their reusable rockets.
Why did Kennedy propose the Moon program? To prove that capitalism was superior. Even with a less than capitalistic effort, America still won that race.
AOC would take this country backward. So-called "progressives" aren't interested much in progress, but something else.
International relations
Updated,
posted on 3.10.19
3.11.19:
The German guy was following the talking points of the media. The media has way, way too much influence in this country. There's not much that can be done about that, or so it is said. Did you know that only a handful of corporations control the media?
Yet, who benefits from that???? But the German guy was talking about Germany. I don't know that country, but if it is anything like this country, the media has got a strong grip on people over there as well.
The media is not our friend.
3.10.19:
On a recent Uber ride, I had a German on board. We engaged in a lively and friendly discussion about international relations.
His English was impeccable. Not even an accent. He could pass as an American. Nobody would guess that he is from Germany. His knowledge of history was first rate. Indeed, he impressed me with his knowledge, and I must say, that his may well surpass my own. But I won't be overawed by the guy, that is not the point. The discussion was interesting. Most interesting, indeed.
What did I learn?
There's a problem with our European allies. This needs attention. I hope somebody in Washington is on this, because if they are caught napping, we might have a problem.
He is concerned about a war with the Russians. What he said seems plausible.
It may well be nice if we could negotiate a peace with Russia, but if that fails, our arms will have to do the talking. He doesn't think the Germans are prepared for a war. I thought that odd, since they seem to be worried. They are more worried about the Americans than the they are about the Russians. But the Americans aren't interested in taking over their country. The Russians? If they are worried about the Russians, maybe they should be concerned about that as a possibility.
He mentioned the German's recent warlike history, and so there may be that. Nevertheless, if they are to remain independent, they need to be persuaded to increase their readiness. That's the big challenge that needs to be met.
I would have liked to have talked longer, but the ride was about 30 minutes, so it was all too brief.
posted on 3.10.19
3.11.19:
The German guy was following the talking points of the media. The media has way, way too much influence in this country. There's not much that can be done about that, or so it is said. Did you know that only a handful of corporations control the media?
Yet, who benefits from that???? But the German guy was talking about Germany. I don't know that country, but if it is anything like this country, the media has got a strong grip on people over there as well.
The media is not our friend.
3.10.19:
On a recent Uber ride, I had a German on board. We engaged in a lively and friendly discussion about international relations.
His English was impeccable. Not even an accent. He could pass as an American. Nobody would guess that he is from Germany. His knowledge of history was first rate. Indeed, he impressed me with his knowledge, and I must say, that his may well surpass my own. But I won't be overawed by the guy, that is not the point. The discussion was interesting. Most interesting, indeed.
What did I learn?
There's a problem with our European allies. This needs attention. I hope somebody in Washington is on this, because if they are caught napping, we might have a problem.
He is concerned about a war with the Russians. What he said seems plausible.
It may well be nice if we could negotiate a peace with Russia, but if that fails, our arms will have to do the talking. He doesn't think the Germans are prepared for a war. I thought that odd, since they seem to be worried. They are more worried about the Americans than the they are about the Russians. But the Americans aren't interested in taking over their country. The Russians? If they are worried about the Russians, maybe they should be concerned about that as a possibility.
He mentioned the German's recent warlike history, and so there may be that. Nevertheless, if they are to remain independent, they need to be persuaded to increase their readiness. That's the big challenge that needs to be met.
I would have liked to have talked longer, but the ride was about 30 minutes, so it was all too brief.
The Brains behind AOC
Comment:
On of the best recommendations for a video that I have ever seen. I saw it on Ace. Nice work.
AOC is a puppet on a string. Anybody with functioning synapses can see that she is not the brain, that another brain is controlling her. She is an actress playing a part. Leave her on her own, and she is in trouble.
The movie gives you leads elsewhere, which I intend to follow. One of those is a movie by Dinesh D'Souza. Remember him? Obama had him put in jail. Talking about another puppet right there, the 'Bamster himself. Who was the brain behind the 'Bamster? The point is that all of this is that this "man behind the curtain tactic" has worked before, so beware. It can work again.
On of the best recommendations for a video that I have ever seen. I saw it on Ace. Nice work.
AOC is a puppet on a string. Anybody with functioning synapses can see that she is not the brain, that another brain is controlling her. She is an actress playing a part. Leave her on her own, and she is in trouble.
The movie gives you leads elsewhere, which I intend to follow. One of those is a movie by Dinesh D'Souza. Remember him? Obama had him put in jail. Talking about another puppet right there, the 'Bamster himself. Who was the brain behind the 'Bamster? The point is that all of this is that this "man behind the curtain tactic" has worked before, so beware. It can work again.
Don Surber: Maybe Jeff Sessions pulled the swamp's plug
Comment:
Yeah? And maybe elephants can really fly. I will believe it when I see it.
Yeah? And maybe elephants can really fly. I will believe it when I see it.
Don Surber: Maybe Jeff Sessions pulled the swamp's plug https://t.co/sNhQQbVVNd— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 11, 2019
Ocasio-Cortez blasts capitalism as an 'irredeemable' system
Comment:
If capitalism is "irredeemable", then what is so virtuous about socialism? Hugo Chavez talked the same way about capitalism, but now people are eating out of dumpsters in Venezuela.
If AOC is going to make comparisons between economic systems, this argument has already been won before. Isn't that what the Cold War was about? Didn't AOC get the memo? The Cold War is over. Capitalism won over Communism.
Besides, she is hyping problems. However, some of what she says, I've written about on this here blog. If capitalism is defined as excessive corporate power, then I am against that, too.
However, the state creates corporations. So, in the end, the government causes this problem. As Ronald Reagan once said, "government isn't the solution, government is the problem". AOC and her ilk want more and more government power. If corporations are bad, government is worse. Corporations cannot arrest you yet, nor murder you yet. Governments have a monopoly power of legalized violence. How is abolishing corporations and placing government power in charge of our country a solution to the problems of excessive power?
If capitalism is "irredeemable", then what is so virtuous about socialism? Hugo Chavez talked the same way about capitalism, but now people are eating out of dumpsters in Venezuela.
If AOC is going to make comparisons between economic systems, this argument has already been won before. Isn't that what the Cold War was about? Didn't AOC get the memo? The Cold War is over. Capitalism won over Communism.
Besides, she is hyping problems. However, some of what she says, I've written about on this here blog. If capitalism is defined as excessive corporate power, then I am against that, too.
However, the state creates corporations. So, in the end, the government causes this problem. As Ronald Reagan once said, "government isn't the solution, government is the problem". AOC and her ilk want more and more government power. If corporations are bad, government is worse. Corporations cannot arrest you yet, nor murder you yet. Governments have a monopoly power of legalized violence. How is abolishing corporations and placing government power in charge of our country a solution to the problems of excessive power?
Ocasio-Cortez blasts capitalism as an 'irredeemable' system https://t.co/cSVeD8mnkS— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) March 11, 2019
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)