Another great post at Free Republic.
Obama won't release his college transcripts because he was a foreign exchange student, according to this theory. That would sink his candidacy, if it were to be true.
Of course, if Romney wasn't serious about winning, he would ignore this strategy.
In one of my book reviews, the subject of fraud came up. I would think the deliberate and knowing concealment of factual information relating to one's eligibility for the office of the presidency has the potential of a federal fraud case. It is absolutely necessary for this information to be released in order to determine if legally, Obama can be president. The same may be true for Romney and his tax records. Otherwise, the entire election could be fraudulent.
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.
Tuesday, August 7, 2012
James Holmes' Psychiatrist Contacted University Police Weeks Before Movie-Theater Shooting
Great stuff on Free Republic. Unfortunately, too many people out there don't see the value in it.
The comments are great too. If I may add something here, off that post, I'd mention that information about the 911 attackers was known in advance of the attacks as well.
Just the overall impression here that the system isn't working like it should.
Why not?
The most common response from the knee-jerkers was gun control. But a simpler way to solve the problem may have involved nothing more than being more alert to the potential threat.
Yeah, if a known looney-tune comes to a movie in a strange-looking outfit, gets up in the middle of the movie, exits the emergency exit--- a more alert security staff should have noticed something not being right. If so, said security staff may have followed him to discover that he blocked open the exit door, which is supposed to be one-way. Obviously, he did this for a reason, right? To re-enter? So, an alert security man would have followed him further to discover that he was getting all kinds of gear ready for an assault. That discovery may have prevented the tragedy.
Just basic common-sense. Only common-sense seems not to be in great supply amongst the knee-jerkers.
The comments are great too. If I may add something here, off that post, I'd mention that information about the 911 attackers was known in advance of the attacks as well.
Just the overall impression here that the system isn't working like it should.
Why not?
The most common response from the knee-jerkers was gun control. But a simpler way to solve the problem may have involved nothing more than being more alert to the potential threat.
Yeah, if a known looney-tune comes to a movie in a strange-looking outfit, gets up in the middle of the movie, exits the emergency exit--- a more alert security staff should have noticed something not being right. If so, said security staff may have followed him to discover that he blocked open the exit door, which is supposed to be one-way. Obviously, he did this for a reason, right? To re-enter? So, an alert security man would have followed him further to discover that he was getting all kinds of gear ready for an assault. That discovery may have prevented the tragedy.
Just basic common-sense. Only common-sense seems not to be in great supply amongst the knee-jerkers.
The Mighty Mississippi to Run Dry?
From theTrumpet.com
What is wealth? It is a term that is not precisely defined. Some may say it is the amount of money that you have stashed away in your bank account. But if a catastrophe occurred, that money wouldn't mean much to you. You can't eat it. You can't build a house out of it. It can't keep you warm in winter and cool in summer. It is merely a medium of exchange.
Another way to define wealth is to say that it is a store of knowledge. Without knowledge, where would you be? Wealth has to begin with knowledge, I would think.
In my post about machines, I wondered if we have become too dependent upon them. An individual's knowledge should include a basic ability to stay alive. If one is too dependent upon machines, one's own life is hostage to the machine. That could be said to be another form of poverty.
I'm all for raising the level of civilization. But fundamental things should not be forgotten.
Just before my father died, he liked to talk about living off the land. He knew how. He was born and raised in the country. But being a city boy all my life, I only know about living off the land- not actually doing it. I wonder if all my knowledge gained from books in school is worth nearly as much as being able to survive off the land, as the old man said.
Colonizing space is just another way to survive. But living off the land is where is all began. Wealth cannot even have a meaning if you can't use it for survival. You have to eat and have shelter and so forth. You shouldn't die just because there's a drought. Or any other force of nature, like an asteroid strike. You need to be able to survive, or your wealth means nothing.
A commenter on Free Republic included a link to the following video. I think it is appropriate to the post, so I'll include it here. It's Hank Williams' A Country Boy Can Survive.
Update:
I guess the bottom line is this: if it can't keep you alive, it isn't worth much. If you were to choose between alternatives, then the longer something can keep you alive, the more it is worth.
Wealth then is about value and how to properly evaluate it.
To forget useful skills do not make you richer, but poorer. To know how to make a fire could be a life saver. The electricity could be out. No matches could be available. No cigarette lighters to be found. You need a fire, what do you do if you don't know how? You may die.
Another thing to remember is that we almost allowed the knowledge of molten salt reactors to be forgotten. Not good. We may desperately need that energy some day.
Also, those in high places who think they are superior may be forgetting what the true value of religion is. There was a reason for it to exist for all that time, mainly because it helped keep people alive.
What is the single greatest reason America is so wealthy? According to the analysts at Stratfor, it is because of a river.
What is wealth? It is a term that is not precisely defined. Some may say it is the amount of money that you have stashed away in your bank account. But if a catastrophe occurred, that money wouldn't mean much to you. You can't eat it. You can't build a house out of it. It can't keep you warm in winter and cool in summer. It is merely a medium of exchange.
Another way to define wealth is to say that it is a store of knowledge. Without knowledge, where would you be? Wealth has to begin with knowledge, I would think.
In my post about machines, I wondered if we have become too dependent upon them. An individual's knowledge should include a basic ability to stay alive. If one is too dependent upon machines, one's own life is hostage to the machine. That could be said to be another form of poverty.
I'm all for raising the level of civilization. But fundamental things should not be forgotten.
Just before my father died, he liked to talk about living off the land. He knew how. He was born and raised in the country. But being a city boy all my life, I only know about living off the land- not actually doing it. I wonder if all my knowledge gained from books in school is worth nearly as much as being able to survive off the land, as the old man said.
Colonizing space is just another way to survive. But living off the land is where is all began. Wealth cannot even have a meaning if you can't use it for survival. You have to eat and have shelter and so forth. You shouldn't die just because there's a drought. Or any other force of nature, like an asteroid strike. You need to be able to survive, or your wealth means nothing.
A commenter on Free Republic included a link to the following video. I think it is appropriate to the post, so I'll include it here. It's Hank Williams' A Country Boy Can Survive.
Update:
I guess the bottom line is this: if it can't keep you alive, it isn't worth much. If you were to choose between alternatives, then the longer something can keep you alive, the more it is worth.
Wealth then is about value and how to properly evaluate it.
To forget useful skills do not make you richer, but poorer. To know how to make a fire could be a life saver. The electricity could be out. No matches could be available. No cigarette lighters to be found. You need a fire, what do you do if you don't know how? You may die.
Another thing to remember is that we almost allowed the knowledge of molten salt reactors to be forgotten. Not good. We may desperately need that energy some day.
Also, those in high places who think they are superior may be forgetting what the true value of religion is. There was a reason for it to exist for all that time, mainly because it helped keep people alive.
Monday, August 6, 2012
Romney in a Landslide--utsandiego
utsandiego--opinion
The comments are more illustrative than the opinion.
Rather dreary. How can people swallow all the propaganda coming from this outfit? Improving economy? Are you kidding?
Blame Bush? Blame Republicans?
After 4 years of Carter, Reagan didn't need to blame anybody. The results spoke for themselves.
To prove this isn't just partisanship, Clinton didn't need to blame his predecessor either. Blaming the opposition in Congress doesn't fly. Reagan and Clinton both worked with a Congress controlled by the opposition. For Obama to blame his lack of success on the opposition shows his incompetence. If he was really good, he would succeed in spite of the opposition.
Success works, failure fails. Or it should. The most dreary thing about this is that it's in California and you've got support for Obama there. How? Why? It may take a cataclysmic failure to get some people to change, and even that may not make any difference. Red states are economically outperforming the Blue. But that doesn't change anything. What will it take? Anything?
The comments are more illustrative than the opinion.
Rather dreary. How can people swallow all the propaganda coming from this outfit? Improving economy? Are you kidding?
Blame Bush? Blame Republicans?
After 4 years of Carter, Reagan didn't need to blame anybody. The results spoke for themselves.
To prove this isn't just partisanship, Clinton didn't need to blame his predecessor either. Blaming the opposition in Congress doesn't fly. Reagan and Clinton both worked with a Congress controlled by the opposition. For Obama to blame his lack of success on the opposition shows his incompetence. If he was really good, he would succeed in spite of the opposition.
Success works, failure fails. Or it should. The most dreary thing about this is that it's in California and you've got support for Obama there. How? Why? It may take a cataclysmic failure to get some people to change, and even that may not make any difference. Red states are economically outperforming the Blue. But that doesn't change anything. What will it take? Anything?
Why D.C. Is Doing So Well
nytimes
The other side of the argument from Laffer.
The other side of the argument from Laffer.
- Washington may have the healthiest economy of any major metropolitan area in the country.
- Some of the local prosperity, of course, is not worth celebrating. It stems from what economists call rent-seeking — tapping into the economic value created by someone else, rather than creating new value.[ Comment: Some? What value does DC create?!]
- Washington’s second lesson is arguably even more important. If you wanted to imagine what the economy might look like if the country were much better educated, you can look at Washington.[ comment: DC is living off the fat of the land. Education has nothing to do with it.]
Arthur Laffer: The Real 'Stimulus' Record
wsj opinion
- the debate rages between those who espouse stimulus spending as a remedy for our weak economy and those who argue it is the cause of our current malaise. [ comment: I did a lot better during the Bush years than I'm doing now. Time to change course.]
- Obama's $860 billion stimulus plan that promised to deliver unemployment rates below 6% by now. Stimulus spending over the past five years totaled more than $4 trillion.
- government taxing people more who work and then giving more money to people who don't work is a surefire recipe for less work, less output and more unemployment [ comment: that's the goal, the mistake is to think otherwise]
- But all of this is just old-timey price theory, the stuff that used to be taught in graduate economics departments.[ comment: Ominous, if the "educated" believe in bunk, we are sunk.]
- Mr. Obama keeps saying that if only Congress would pass his second stimulus plan, unemployment would finally start to fall. That's an expensive leap of faith with no evidence to confirm it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)