Wild Thang is its name.
World's ugliest dog? Meet Wild Thang, the 8-year-old Pekingese who took the 2024 crown https://t.co/Mmew1rJ5Gu via @Yahoo
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) June 22, 2024
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, June 22, 2024
World's Ugliest Dog
Wild Thang is its name.
Looks like a dry run for the booster catch
SpaceX getting ready to catch that booster. They'll drop a dummy booster in a controlled drop onto the chopsticks in order to test the system.
The rest of the report is of no interest to me, but if you wish, you can watch all of it. It will join at the interesting point for me.
Nerdy calculations for Venus-sourced Tanker Fleet for Space Missions elsewhere
A new entry in this series, which will be part 4.
The previous post was here.
Consider the famous equation, E = mc^2. ( Yeah, I know. I should use a real exponent. Humor me.) If you were to apply algebra to the equation by multiplying it by a fraction. Let's say X, where X is the fraction of the speed of light that 1 km/sec of velocity is. Therefore, for any delta V of 1 km/sec, the delta-E ( where E=energy) could be calculated, or estimated depending upon how picky you are. Thus, delta-E would be equal to m * X^2.
What does this do for us? Well, I'd advance the notion that a rocket ship could carry a lot more mass once it is in orbit, than what it could carry in order to get into Low Earth Orbit (LEO). Looking at the equation, you will note that it takes a lot more energy to do delta-V than if you were to increase mass. That's because delta-V is exponential in terms of energy ( delta-E). You can increase mass a lot faster than delta-V.
That's why atomic bombs are so powerful. It only takes a small amount of mass in order to get a lot of energy. That's because the energy is coming from a large velocity yes, but also the energy is increasing exponentially with its speed. And the speed of light is really fast, and thus you get really big numbers.
We can use this to our advantage once we get into space. Just load up that Starship with a lot more than 200 tons, and you can make a crap load of methane gas and oxygen. You could fill up the tanks in Venus orbit, I'll bet. ( and then some)
Let's say a Starship masses out at 1000 tons fully loaded. ( I'm too lazy to look it up.) That's 5 times more than the 200 tons that it says its rated for in order to get to LEO. Going back and forth from Low Venus Orbit (LVO) would use a lot of fuel. But not if you can load up a lot more than you started with, because your delta-V was a lot less.
You could make big tanker ships in High Venus Orbit (HVO), and fill them up with a lot of fuel. A LOT OF FUEL. That's because of an even lower delta-V requirement in order to get to HEO from VHO.
Something to think about, eh?
7.75 ^2= approx. 60 60 million m/s ^ 2= times mass in kg
7^2= 49 49 million m/s ^ 2= times mass in kg
6 ^2=36 36 million m/s ^ 2= times mass in kg
5 ^2=25 25 million m/s ^ 2= times mass in kg
4 ^2=16 16 million m/s ^ 2= times mass in kg
3 ^2=9 9 million m/s ^ 2= times mass in kg
2 ^2=4 = 4 million m/s ^2= times mass in kg
Energy equals velocity squared @ 1 km/sec = 1000 m/s*1000 m/s = 1 million m/sec^2; = times mass in kg
Next
Friday, June 21, 2024
School choice is a winning issue in Texas
GOP'ers who ran against it are out in large numbers.
ProPublica Is BIG MAD at Greg Abbott for Campaigning (and Winning) Against Anti-School Choice Republicans https://t.co/YbruJpvJ2y
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) June 21, 2024
Austin Powers could slug these two too, they look like they've been beaten with an ugly stick
Basil's mother looks a whole lot better than these two:
Watch as Rep. Jaypal (D) and Joy Reid chuckle and call the r*pe of a 13-year-old girl by an illegal “fear-mongering.”
— Libs of TikTok (@libsoftiktok) June 20, 2024
What part about the r*pe of a minor is “fear-mongering” and funny to you @PramilaJayapal @JoyAnnReid?? pic.twitter.com/Q2mDcwlI4d
Mining Venus, the Saudi Arabia of the inner solar system
A new entry in this series, which will be part 3.
The previous post was here.
The small delta-V requirements for a high Venusian orbit is rather low. The significance of this is in the energy requirements, as energy is most highly correlated with delta-V. This is according to the basic laws of motion, in which energy is related to velocity SQUARED. This makes energy an exponential function, as opposed to mass, which is linear.
In other words, we can transport large amounts of mass due to the low energy requirements due to the low delta-V it takes to get from high Venus orbit to high Earth orbit. Consequently, large propellant depots could be constructed, which would facilitate larger masses to be moved between the planets, including Mars.
If Elon Musk is interested in settling Mars, here's a golden opportunity to make that happen. You could construct space Arks, which would be necessarily HUGE in order to accomodate large numbers of people. His Starships could be tasked with getting his passengers to and from the Arks, which would only need a small amount of delta-V to get from high Earth orbit to high Mars orbit. The Arks would be tasked with dealing with the problems of a long journey through interplanetary space. They could be made so that they could resist the high radioactivity while spun up to provide artificial gravity. It would be like traveling the planets in a large ocean liner.
Arks could be lifted off the moon. The moon has a low delta-V requirement, which would also aid in moving large amounts of mass necessary for the construction of the Arks.
Venus has a lot of sulfuric acid and carbon dioxide. These can be mined from the upper atmosphere, which would save energy from having to dive deep into the gravity well. That concept was covered in the previous posts on the subject.
Sulfuric acid can be made into water by taking out the sulfur. Carbon dioxide and water can make oxygen and methane. These can power the Starships.
There is so much carbon dioxide and sulfuric acid on Venus that you'll never run out. Besides, there is plenty of other materials in the atmosphere of Venus that it could be a treasure trove for space mining.
Next
Thursday, June 20, 2024
They Rarely Report the Revisions - Three Months of 2023 Job Gains Wiped Out After Updates
They Rarely Report the Revisions - Three Months of 2023 Job Gains Wiped Out After Updates
Comment:
Potemkim Village up and down the line, as someone often says. Too many folks buy the bull, however. Especially the women and the old folks, who watch a lot of teevee.
Comment:
Potemkim Village up and down the line, as someone often says. Too many folks buy the bull, however. Especially the women and the old folks, who watch a lot of teevee.
2020 election was rigged
Also, the J6th riot was staged, and helped Brandon's installation as POTUS. Consequently, the Brandon years are not legit.
During The 2020 Presidential Election Joe Biden Received So Many Mail In Ballots In Key States It Was Unheard Of
— Wall Street Apes (@WallStreetApes) June 20, 2024
“Without those mail in ballots Joe Biden would not win”
“We’ve never seen anything like a 70/30 split” for mail in ballots
- Generally speaking “He had twice as… pic.twitter.com/1Q9t9CdsqS
Brandon's "senior momentum"
The claim here is that Brandon is getting traction with his "saving democracy" bravo sierra.
If seniors can be that dumb, then God help us. They should know better. ( I mean "we" since I'm over 65 myself.)
It seems to me that he is trying to buy votes with Federal spending. This might mean something because people will vote what they consider to be in their interests. If he can scare the old folks, and buy them off too, then this might work for him. I wouldn't count this strategy out. Also keep in mind that an old person's future is limited. Therefore, an appeal to the future won't work with the older folks.
Biden's senior momentum: Why he's courting older voters https://t.co/8OtCZ9ANAy
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) June 20, 2024
New American Daily | Why is Congress Suddenly Unleashing Nuclear Energy? (video)
This is live as I write this... Update a short time later: after 20 minutes or so, the topic changes.
"Gender affirming" care scandal at Texas Children's Hospital
Comment:
I used to make deliveries there all the time. Woo boy. This one could have legs.
Texas Children’s Hospital whistleblower just NUKED the ‘gender-affirming care’ program with one incredible claim… https://t.co/skQnuWiWNa
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) June 20, 2024
Water and carbon dioxide from Venus? ( series)
Previous (First in series)
6/20/24:
A question arises as to what the feasibility is of these "high" orbits? It seems that for the Earth, that the moon would pose a problem. The gravitational pull of the moon may perturb a high orbit around the Earth, and thus sling it out of orbit. That would not be good. Consequently, a high Earth orbit may have to be restricted to a neighborhood closer to Earth than the moon, or in a LaGrangian point.
But Venus and Mars could be different. These two planets do not have such a large moon, as Earth does. Therefore, a high orbit around these planets may be workable. I did a Quora question about these types of orbits, and here are some good answers.
Why Venus and Mars? Each could be possible colonization sites. You could start with gathering carbon dioxide and water in order to make rocket fuel, as mentioned in this post.
end update of 6/11/24 post:
6.11.24: Update:
end update of 6/10.24 post:
6.10/24:
This could be a new series of posts, beginning with this one. The first in the series is getting a bit busy, with too many updates. This one will begin with a discussion of mining Venus. Venus? The Delta-V for Venus is lower than for Mars, plus there ought to be more frequent launch windows. Getting there and back should be less of a problem than for Mars.
 |
| Delta-V Map for Venus from High Earth Orbit |
The problem will be in getting resources off of it. As everyone who follows this stuff knows, Venus has a horribly thick atmosphere, and a very high surface temperature. However, in the upper atmosphere, it is fairly mild in temperature and in pressure. Getting there may be a problem, though.
If you cannot get there easily enough, perhaps you wouldn't need to. What if you could do a LOXLEO approach? That is to say, you'd skim resources off the top of the Venusian atmosphere. You could get plenty of carbon dioxide, and perhaps plenty of sulfuric acid. The sulfuric acid will contain plenty of hydrogen, which could be mined for water.
Therefore, Venus could be a treasure trove of carbon dioxide and water. There is also some nitrogen in the atmosphere as well. What's not to like?
As usual, you'd have to get there with the necessary equipment. Even with a lower delta-v, getting to Venus with the necessary equipment could be an issue.
There would be an abundance of solar energy. Being that Venus is so much closer to the sun, the rays should be much stronger. The energy necessary for running the equipment could from there.
More here! Venus flyby for shorter roundtrips to Mars. NASA study on colonizing Venus. (pdf)
Next
Pre posted royal nonesuch
This will be a covert post meant to hide nothing, but you can never be too careful these days.
Comment
byu/NGSensibleSolutions from discussion
inspace
Wednesday, June 19, 2024
Marxist dialectics--why sincere conservatives ought not to use it
6/19/24:
This is a re-post of an idea that I've expounded upon many a time on this blog. It goes well with corporatism is not capitalism post updated a bit earlier.
That is all to this update of the last update to this here post: (I hope that's clear)
Update, 10/17/23:
Jordan's first vote falls through. It looks like there will be more votes. I'm including the development on this post, as opposed to the McCarthy updates because the link is acquired from Ground News. Ground News links to Voice of America, which is state-owned. If it is state-owned, that means it is socialist. Yet Ground News calls VOA "factual".
I don't know how a state-owned enterprise can be considered "center". Once again, I have to take exception to the use of this terminology because it distorts the true situation.
The article uses a lot of "persuader words", which are intended to show some disapproval of Jordan. Sorry, I'm having none of that. It is not truly even-handed. As for it being center of the road, what the hell does that even mean? This government is middle of the road, centered, and factual? Nope, not a chance. Jordan is called "hard-charging", his supporters are "hard-right"; and McCarthy was removed by "angry hard-liners".
Asking for accurate and honest reportage is too "extreme", I suppose. We have to allow dishonesty in order to be reasonable? There's nothing honest about VOA's characterizations. There's nothing reasonable about people who are determined to hide the truth.
end update:
10/15/23, Update of post of 8/22/23:
There's a website called Ground News, which rates articles upon the Marxist model heretofore mentioned on this iddy biddy blog.
Even though I reject the usage of the model, the site is proving to be useful. For example, the DOJ has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Google. I found it through Ground News. Most so-called "right-wing" websites don't bother covering it. The left (the term is used here because that's what they call themselves) is all over it, with it being standard fare on their sites.
A reading of those articles is pretty thin in terms of significance. Even if the DOJ wins the suit, it isn't likely to be impactful. The remedy to the alleged wrongdoing of Google is already being applied in Europe. People there use Google anyway. It is a whole lot of nothing. So if you ignore that, does it make you a right-wing site? Hence, the terminology doesn't really apply, at least in this case.
There are complaints that could be filed against Google, but not against their search engine. Google is a lot more than that. Hence, the significance isn't really there.
end update:
8/22/23, Update of post of 2/18/22:
Yep, saw it again. You can argue all day long about who is the "true conservative" and who isn't. But in MY book, the dead giveaway is the use of the Marxist dialectic of the "right" v the left. The left loves it and so the label fits them. But using the word "right" in reference to yourself is a loser every time.That's why the left loves it so much.
Therefore, a true conservative would never use that paradigm in a description of himself...
the original post follows below:
Real life example of the Marxist dialectic, ie left-center-right
Comment:
So Ace cuts Ed Morrisey a new one here and that's good. But I'd like to use that as an opportunity to demonstrate why using this model of political analysis is a bad idea, unless you are like Ed Morrisey, and aren't sincere about your conservatism.
The reason should be obvious. It makes it much easier to attack anybody who IS sincere about their conservatism. Just call them "extremists". They can hide behind their "moderation", and say that it is equally bad for "right-wing" extremists than for "left-wing" extremists. In practice, the commies will just call anybody who disagrees with them a "right-wing" extremist or fascist. Note that all of a sudden, nobody gets to disagree with the commies. Commies are hysterical about any opposition. Of course you are. In the commie world, everybody who isn't on their side is the next Adolf Hitler.
It is not wrong to call them commies because it is their paradigm, and they use it so well. For conservatives to fall into this by calling themselves as being "on the right" is just plain dumb. Or they are like Morrisey, and they aren't sincere.
It's the kind of maneuver that makes "failure theater" work. The "moderates" can pretend to be on the side of conservatism, but when it comes time to prove that with something meaningful, they are nowhere to be found.
Commies are liars, and so are those who practice this tactic. They are enabling the commies even if they are sincere when they use it. All that is necessary is for guys like this to use that label to smear conservatives as fascists, and what can you say if you play their game? The answer is not to play their game. Don't use a Marxist model that only works for Marxists. That is, unless you are a Marxist yourself.
This is a re-post of an idea that I've expounded upon many a time on this blog. It goes well with corporatism is not capitalism post updated a bit earlier.
That is all to this update of the last update to this here post: (I hope that's clear)
Update, 10/17/23:
Jordan's first vote falls through. It looks like there will be more votes. I'm including the development on this post, as opposed to the McCarthy updates because the link is acquired from Ground News. Ground News links to Voice of America, which is state-owned. If it is state-owned, that means it is socialist. Yet Ground News calls VOA "factual".
I don't know how a state-owned enterprise can be considered "center". Once again, I have to take exception to the use of this terminology because it distorts the true situation.
The article uses a lot of "persuader words", which are intended to show some disapproval of Jordan. Sorry, I'm having none of that. It is not truly even-handed. As for it being center of the road, what the hell does that even mean? This government is middle of the road, centered, and factual? Nope, not a chance. Jordan is called "hard-charging", his supporters are "hard-right"; and McCarthy was removed by "angry hard-liners".
Asking for accurate and honest reportage is too "extreme", I suppose. We have to allow dishonesty in order to be reasonable? There's nothing honest about VOA's characterizations. There's nothing reasonable about people who are determined to hide the truth.
end update:
10/15/23, Update of post of 8/22/23:
There's a website called Ground News, which rates articles upon the Marxist model heretofore mentioned on this iddy biddy blog.
Even though I reject the usage of the model, the site is proving to be useful. For example, the DOJ has filed an anti-trust lawsuit against Google. I found it through Ground News. Most so-called "right-wing" websites don't bother covering it. The left (the term is used here because that's what they call themselves) is all over it, with it being standard fare on their sites.
A reading of those articles is pretty thin in terms of significance. Even if the DOJ wins the suit, it isn't likely to be impactful. The remedy to the alleged wrongdoing of Google is already being applied in Europe. People there use Google anyway. It is a whole lot of nothing. So if you ignore that, does it make you a right-wing site? Hence, the terminology doesn't really apply, at least in this case.
There are complaints that could be filed against Google, but not against their search engine. Google is a lot more than that. Hence, the significance isn't really there.
end update:
8/22/23, Update of post of 2/18/22:
Yep, saw it again. You can argue all day long about who is the "true conservative" and who isn't. But in MY book, the dead giveaway is the use of the Marxist dialectic of the "right" v the left. The left loves it and so the label fits them. But using the word "right" in reference to yourself is a loser every time.That's why the left loves it so much.
Therefore, a true conservative would never use that paradigm in a description of himself...
the original post follows below:
Real life example of the Marxist dialectic, ie left-center-right
Comment:
So Ace cuts Ed Morrisey a new one here and that's good. But I'd like to use that as an opportunity to demonstrate why using this model of political analysis is a bad idea, unless you are like Ed Morrisey, and aren't sincere about your conservatism.
The reason should be obvious. It makes it much easier to attack anybody who IS sincere about their conservatism. Just call them "extremists". They can hide behind their "moderation", and say that it is equally bad for "right-wing" extremists than for "left-wing" extremists. In practice, the commies will just call anybody who disagrees with them a "right-wing" extremist or fascist. Note that all of a sudden, nobody gets to disagree with the commies. Commies are hysterical about any opposition. Of course you are. In the commie world, everybody who isn't on their side is the next Adolf Hitler.
It is not wrong to call them commies because it is their paradigm, and they use it so well. For conservatives to fall into this by calling themselves as being "on the right" is just plain dumb. Or they are like Morrisey, and they aren't sincere.
It's the kind of maneuver that makes "failure theater" work. The "moderates" can pretend to be on the side of conservatism, but when it comes time to prove that with something meaningful, they are nowhere to be found.
Commies are liars, and so are those who practice this tactic. They are enabling the commies even if they are sincere when they use it. All that is necessary is for guys like this to use that label to smear conservatives as fascists, and what can you say if you play their game? The answer is not to play their game. Don't use a Marxist model that only works for Marxists. That is, unless you are a Marxist yourself.
Going after corporations is not socialism
6/19/24:
Here's a tweet that expresses a point of view that I've had for awhile now. That is to say, corporations are out of control, and are not a conservative group. This is regardless of whether or not they support one party or the other. Currently, I'd say they support Democrats more than the Republicans, but the GOP doesn't seem to mind.
end update of 8/9/17 post:
In my opinion, which is based upon how the US Constitution was written, that in keeping with originalism, which is supposed to be a conservative idea, that to go after corporations is consistent with conservative thought.
It has become something of a given that the GOP favors corporations, more than the Democrats, who are okay with corporations, and these same corporations favor Dems and their agenda more than the GOP does. This is hard to understand how the GOP lets themselves be the "party of the rich", when it is the Democrats who tend to favor the rich far more. Fake news and fake culture of all kinds may be at work here.
So, this comment was in keeping with a discussion about Sanders of Vermont, who may be the Democrat nominee in 2020. The Dems kept him off the ballot, as you may recall. The WikiLeaks business showed that, and now the Deep State is going after Trump, another populist type of candidate. Corporations prefer the fake, in my opinion, because they care nothing for the people.
Corporations need to be controlled. Instead, they are controlling us. In my opinion, they are the ones driving this impeachment nonsense. If they aren't doing it, then who? Why would the Sanders type voters be interested in knocking off Trump, when Trump resembles Sanders more than Hillary did?
There are those who say people vote according to their tribe. If that is so, then Trump should not be POTUS. There is no always in any of this stuff. That provides the opportunity for someone to come along and fix things when things are not right. Polls say consistently that we have been on the wrong track for most of the past two decades.
I trust Trump more than Sanders, but either one could betray. They all do. One of these types of politicians have to come through for the people in the country to survive. The corporate state does not care about the people. You can take that to the bank.
On the other hand, if the Tiberius Syndrome has its way, America will fade into history just like the Romans did. Corporate power is the Tiberius of the age.
Here's a tweet that expresses a point of view that I've had for awhile now. That is to say, corporations are out of control, and are not a conservative group. This is regardless of whether or not they support one party or the other. Currently, I'd say they support Democrats more than the Republicans, but the GOP doesn't seem to mind.
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) June 19, 2024
end update of 8/9/17 post:
In my opinion, which is based upon how the US Constitution was written, that in keeping with originalism, which is supposed to be a conservative idea, that to go after corporations is consistent with conservative thought.
It has become something of a given that the GOP favors corporations, more than the Democrats, who are okay with corporations, and these same corporations favor Dems and their agenda more than the GOP does. This is hard to understand how the GOP lets themselves be the "party of the rich", when it is the Democrats who tend to favor the rich far more. Fake news and fake culture of all kinds may be at work here.
So, this comment was in keeping with a discussion about Sanders of Vermont, who may be the Democrat nominee in 2020. The Dems kept him off the ballot, as you may recall. The WikiLeaks business showed that, and now the Deep State is going after Trump, another populist type of candidate. Corporations prefer the fake, in my opinion, because they care nothing for the people.
Corporations need to be controlled. Instead, they are controlling us. In my opinion, they are the ones driving this impeachment nonsense. If they aren't doing it, then who? Why would the Sanders type voters be interested in knocking off Trump, when Trump resembles Sanders more than Hillary did?
There are those who say people vote according to their tribe. If that is so, then Trump should not be POTUS. There is no always in any of this stuff. That provides the opportunity for someone to come along and fix things when things are not right. Polls say consistently that we have been on the wrong track for most of the past two decades.
I trust Trump more than Sanders, but either one could betray. They all do. One of these types of politicians have to come through for the people in the country to survive. The corporate state does not care about the people. You can take that to the bank.
On the other hand, if the Tiberius Syndrome has its way, America will fade into history just like the Romans did. Corporate power is the Tiberius of the age.
Save da View
Couldn't have said it better meself. /hic
Until now, I was planning to vote for Donald Trump for a third time
— Reaganite 🫡❄️🥃 (@emperoreaganite) June 18, 2024
But I cannot in good conscience support a man who will cancel The View, long known for its total impartiality and the towering intellect of venerated panelists such as Whoopi Goldberg & Joy Behar pic.twitter.com/dum9YJOBZa
Tuesday, June 18, 2024
Mock trial of Lee Harvey Oswald for the assassination of JFK in 1963
Why write about this? Actually, I'm a bit conflicted over it. What possible good could it do? Perhaps none.
So I won't go into great detail. There are a few things worth noting. Number one, I had never heard of this flick before. It was made in 1964, it said. However, it was suppressed at that time. The trial kept the actual names secret. Therefore, you would not recognize some of the testimony, but the basic facts appeared to be accurate. There is one discrepancy. The movie said that 3 bullets were found. My understanding was only two were found. The third bullet was assumed to have been lost, since it missed. If three shots took place, then only 2 bullets should have been found.
There weren't that many witnesses. Some of the trial necessitated the assumption of how Oswald would have handled himself in the courtroom. Since he was dead, he could not enter a plea. Therefore, the plea had to be assumed to be done a certain way. In the movie, Oswald entered no plea. Under Texas law at that time, such a scenario would assume a not guilty plea. Also, the defense attorney could add something to the plea. In the movie, the defense attorney added not guilty by reason of insanity.
The trial assumed that the viewers were the jury, so the arguments were presented as if the viewers were to decide. The movie concluded with the open question left to the viewer.
That's about all that's worth mentioning, I'd say.
Aside from that, I'd add that it's fascinating to watch such things. The difference in how matters could unfold is really rather small. What I mean is that Oswald, if alive, could have had a trial like this, and found not guilty by reason of insanity. In such amount of time, he could have been freed like John Hinckley was freed. But that doesn't mean that he would have had such an outcome, but then you can never know that.
If Oswald had been found not guilty by reason of insanity, he could be alive today ( assuming that Jack Ruby didn't murder him of course). History can turn on such events. Imagine how things might have been different if Oswald had stood trial. Would things have been better or worse? Ooops! Another open question.
Shapiro and Bongino: Mail-in ballots increases the chances of electoral fraud
How do you know who the bad guy is? To the left, these two guys are the bad guys. Why? Are they lying? If not, then who is? Does lying make you the bad guy? Then maybe we can find the bad guy by finding who is doing the lying. By the way, good luck with that. Trouble is, people are too easy to lie to. That isn't just my opinion, you know.
Ben Shapiro and Dan Bongino discuss the election fraud that happened during 2020 that led to Trump’s defeat and whether it’ll play out again in 2024. Excellent discussion. pic.twitter.com/Bngn3M1Oxg
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) June 18, 2024
Review of movie "Falling Down"
Here's a video of Limbaugh reviewing the movie "Falling Down"
Why include this? Why not? Anyway, who is a bad guy? The "bad guy" in the movie doesn't seem to know that he was the bad guy. What happens when the bad guy doesn't know he is the bad guy? It may mean that he has to die.
What is liberalism?
Where liberalism prevails, it's a place where bad guys can win! Like in the movie, "Last Action Hero". But you won't need a magic ticket to get in. Just keep voting for insane liberals.
What bad guys? The terrorists (and their sympathizers) are now a protected class in America. Crooks are no longer prosecuted and jailed, so now crime is exploding in the big cities. The bad guys are winning and are now running these cities. Do you like what you see? People are packing up and leaving those big cities and going elsewhere.
Here's an explication of the idea of bad guys winning in the movie "Last Action Hero".
Monday, June 17, 2024
Powerline blog: Biden Hemorrhaging Black Support
It's particularly bad with under 40 voters. Also, in a three way race, black support hurts Biden more than Trump.
I'm getting to be of the opinion that Biden won't be the nominee on election day.
Biden Hemorrhaging Black Support https://t.co/yC1SQ9scpu via @powerlineUS
— BootsandOil (@BootsandO6892) June 18, 2024
More here...
Sunday, June 16, 2024
Saudi Arabia drops the petrodollar
Way back in the early 2010's, I wrote a bit about bitcoin. Now, it may become the replacement for the PetroDollar. Saudi Arabia has ditched the dollar, and there are hints that the direction they want to go is to bitcoin. If so, bitcoin can have the backing that the dollar once enjoyed.
That's my take. But what does that mean? I think everyone will probably agree that it isn't good for the US dollar. As for the general public of the USA, it's every man for himself.
Funny how Brandon brought this about. The Dems are always talking against "every man for himself", but here they are, the ones most responsible for it. The US government is out of control. Watch the video and think about what you've just read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)