The link from Google showed some pics that would have been considered long ago as being pornographic.
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 12, 2014
Peseus slays Medusa
Didn't know what Gorgon meant. Bad ass bitch, I suppose.
The link from Google showed some pics that would have been considered long ago as being pornographic.
Maybe this one is a Gorgon.
The link from Google showed some pics that would have been considered long ago as being pornographic.
Pat Buchanan's assessment of presidential politics in 2016
He's not very optimistic.
He's probably right---here's a clue why:
Now, what does all that have in common? Money. The GOP is following Democrat premises. When they do this, they lose.
Of course, if anybody ever listened to me, they could figure out a solution to this. But obviously nobody does, and so they'll lose like they always do.
I'm telling you that if you crack the money assumption, you crack the Democrat's back. It's all about the money, but the GOP cannot play that game anymore, and win. Not when you control the money presses.
If you show these people another way to support themselves and it works, it's going to kill the Democrats. The last thing the Democrats want is for people to not need them for anything.
If you can't win the ballot, you won't win on the battlefield ( should it come to that ) and only prove to the people beyond all doubt that you are unworthy. And you will be.
He's probably right---here's a clue why:
“It’s hard for me to see what Republican cracks that base that is increasingly solid Democratic – first because of demography and second because of the welfare state that now embraces scores of millions of people who look upon anyone wanting to cut government as somebody who’s going to take my food stamps away, or cut my education, or my health care, or my housing subsidy, or my income subsidy.”
Now, what does all that have in common? Money. The GOP is following Democrat premises. When they do this, they lose.
Of course, if anybody ever listened to me, they could figure out a solution to this. But obviously nobody does, and so they'll lose like they always do.
I'm telling you that if you crack the money assumption, you crack the Democrat's back. It's all about the money, but the GOP cannot play that game anymore, and win. Not when you control the money presses.
If you show these people another way to support themselves and it works, it's going to kill the Democrats. The last thing the Democrats want is for people to not need them for anything.
If you can't win the ballot, you won't win on the battlefield ( should it come to that ) and only prove to the people beyond all doubt that you are unworthy. And you will be.
A response to Ann Barnhardt
That last post, I dunno. I'm going to have to deconstruct it, word for word. For she starts off with the assertion that she's all objective reason, and I don't see it.
Let's look at that first sentence:
Maybe that's not good enough for you, so let's consider other models.
In mathematics, you start off with some axioms, and build your proofs from those. In logic, you start with premises, and arrive at a conclusion. That's how I understand it. What's the reality here? What's the premises, and what are the conclusions? How does it all fit together? I dunno.
But let's get into it, shall we? This may be a long post, by the way.
Remember what I said about "word-for-word"? Here we go: "The Obama regime is delighted" --- how does she know that? Being delighted is an emotional state, how does she determine emotion? I'm pretty sure she doesn't know the man personally. Nor is it likely that she knows very many, if any, of these people in this government.
By the way, I'm suspicious about Obama. I've always been suspicious about Obama. But I would NEVER claim that as proof of wrongdoing. You have to prove it. You can't just take your suspicions and run with them. Remember that she is claiming objective reality. There's a lot of dots to be connected here, but she gets from point A to point B in lightning speed.
It's probably true that that ISIS has been armed to a certain extent by the administration as a part of their policy objectives. Perhaps she could go into detail into what those objectives are, but those are only presented as axioms to show that Obama is really delighted in this outcome. Not to say that she's wrong, but there's no evidence presented to show what this administration's objectives are. She merely asserts that they seek to restore the Caliphate and leaves it at that as an objective point in fact. There's a lot of distance being covered in a very short time there.
Again, not to say that she's wrong, but anybody impartially reading this could be flabbergasted at what she's coming up with on the basis of her "objective reality" assertions.
But I'm not done yet with number 1 yet. Here's another phrase-- "up to it neck in Musloid agents". Where does she get that? Not to say that she's wrong, but could she name names and come up with some "objective" reality about who these people are and what they are doing? She goes a very long way with little evidence to support that.
Not that its wrong, mind you. But she says its "obvious", but how so? What's so obvious about it? I would say that she has suspicions that she equates with objective reality. However to go from that point to proving it to an objective observer, she needs some facts to support it. Perhaps she has provided it in earlier posts, but if she has, she should link to those posts. She does not do that.
Let's move on to the next, which would be number 2. Rather than quote there, she does state some obvious stuff, but it isn't unique to Obama. First of all, Turkey is a member of NATO. Our alliance with Turkey has been a long held policy--- it isn't anything new. Now, I've read that Turkey doesn't like its Kurds, but that is not quite the same as saying that they want to wipe them out. Maybe the Turkish leader wants to be "caliph", but she doesn't supply any evidence to show why she knows this. She claims an alliance of this man with ISIS who will slaughter the Kurds and be slaughtered in turn by Erdogan. Perhaps that's a plan, but she supplies no evidence of such a plan. In contrast, Turkish aspirations ran counter to US policies under the Bush administration, which favored the Kurds. Whatever changes Obama made to those maybe attributable to him. But those wouldn't necessarily be new policies as the NATO alliance probably supersedes any understanding with respect to the Kurds.
Well, that presents some difficulties. How do you reconcile differences between two allies who don't like each other much? There's a precedent with respect to Turkey and that is with Greece. Those two don't like each other much either. This is an artifact of history. Greece was once conquered by the Ottomans and were a part of that empire. Barnhardt claims that they want their empire back and that Obama is helping them do that. What has been the US policy with respect to any such latent desires amongst the Turks? Probably not what Barnhardt asserts, so if she claims it, she needs a lot more than what she has presented. Not to say that she's wrong, but she makes some pretty long leaps based upon what exactly?
So much with number 2, let's move on to number 3.
Barnhardt keeps claiming that Obama is a homosexual, but I don't get that. Secondly, that he is an imbecile, which I don't get either. He can hold his own against anybody who he debates with, and that doesn't make him an imbecile. If he was so stupid, he would be easily exposed. Maybe its all a part of a conspiracy that he hasn't been so far. But patience, that may be coming. It may well turn out that he is merely incompetent, but it does look evil sometimes. Obama isn't an imbecile, but he isn't 10 feet tall either.
By the way, she is contradicting herself. If he is an imbecile, he's incompetent, right? She doing what the left was doing with Bush. On the one hand, Bush was an idiot. On the other hand, he was doing things that were demonically evil. He knew things that only a supernatural being would know. I've discussed that before on other forums. I think that phenomenon is likely based upon a personal dislike than upon any basis in fact. Either the man is competent or he isn't. Neither Bush nor Obama can be competent and incompetent at the same time. But that seems to be what Barnhardt is doing. She does this by claiming that he is being handled by those who are really much smarter than he is. The left did that with Bush.
The problem with that is that the president is the only one who can actually do these things. He has the power. Those who serve under him do as he says, not the other way around. Although it is true that his position depends a lot upon people who put him there, but the ultimate power belongs to him. People made that kind of mistake with Hitler. They thought they could control him, but it went the other way around. Our government gives the president a lot more power than what the German government at that time gave Hitler, by the way. If we had a true Hitlerite type, we'd be in big, big trouble. By the sixth year, Hitler had already started WWII. I'd say that's some objective evidence to suggest that although Obama may be bad, he isn't in Hitler territory.
If Obama is being pulled by strings, she needs to show the evidence. I don't see it.
Moving on to number 4, she says the US as it has existed no longer exists.
Here's where she stumbles rather badly. If we were being ruled the way that she claims, neither I nor she could even operate. We'd be arrested and executed already. On that point, 'nuff said. But let's say this---Hitler had his opponents hideously executed. Okay, that's enough.
She says we are being ruled by some rather bad human beings. Well, I think she may have a smidgen of truth there, but it isn't clear that we are not finished as a country and civilization just yet.
I'll finish this one up, as time is getting a bit short.
She says Cruz is a bad guy because his wife works for Goldman Sachs. Another one of her warp speed conclusions. How does that follow?
In short, this is an emotional rant, not an objective piece of analysis. It is based largely upon her dislike of people who do not agree with her. Logic and reason doesn't work that way.
I'm defending logic and reason, not these characters running our government. I'm with Barnhardt on that. But at least I don't confuse objectivity with subjectivity. If I did, I would be ashamed of myself. I think she does, so the conclusion should follow.
Let's look at that first sentence:
Imbecile pundits who still can’t get their heads around objective reality are sowing confusion with regards to the overthrow of the government in Iraq. Let’s state the obvious so that clear, logical, reasoned thinking may follow:Before I get too far into this, I'm not saying she's wrong in her assertions. What I don't see is her evidence for this being "objective reality" when it is simply a matter of opinion. Using our jurisprudence as an example, as in a courtroom, there is a standard of evidence that has to be presented in order to determine guilt. There's a high bar of proof, admittedly, and the standard there is said to be truth.
Maybe that's not good enough for you, so let's consider other models.
In mathematics, you start off with some axioms, and build your proofs from those. In logic, you start with premises, and arrive at a conclusion. That's how I understand it. What's the reality here? What's the premises, and what are the conclusions? How does it all fit together? I dunno.
But let's get into it, shall we? This may be a long post, by the way.
1. The Obama regime is delighted to see Iraq destabilize because its objective is the reformation of the islamic Caliphate. Baghdad is now primed to be conquered by ISIS, who are Musloid Brotherhood/Al Qaeda and have been supported and armed by the Obama regime, which is up to its neck in musloid agents.
Remember what I said about "word-for-word"? Here we go: "The Obama regime is delighted" --- how does she know that? Being delighted is an emotional state, how does she determine emotion? I'm pretty sure she doesn't know the man personally. Nor is it likely that she knows very many, if any, of these people in this government.
By the way, I'm suspicious about Obama. I've always been suspicious about Obama. But I would NEVER claim that as proof of wrongdoing. You have to prove it. You can't just take your suspicions and run with them. Remember that she is claiming objective reality. There's a lot of dots to be connected here, but she gets from point A to point B in lightning speed.
It's probably true that that ISIS has been armed to a certain extent by the administration as a part of their policy objectives. Perhaps she could go into detail into what those objectives are, but those are only presented as axioms to show that Obama is really delighted in this outcome. Not to say that she's wrong, but there's no evidence presented to show what this administration's objectives are. She merely asserts that they seek to restore the Caliphate and leaves it at that as an objective point in fact. There's a lot of distance being covered in a very short time there.
Again, not to say that she's wrong, but anybody impartially reading this could be flabbergasted at what she's coming up with on the basis of her "objective reality" assertions.
But I'm not done yet with number 1 yet. Here's another phrase-- "up to it neck in Musloid agents". Where does she get that? Not to say that she's wrong, but could she name names and come up with some "objective" reality about who these people are and what they are doing? She goes a very long way with little evidence to support that.
Not that its wrong, mind you. But she says its "obvious", but how so? What's so obvious about it? I would say that she has suspicions that she equates with objective reality. However to go from that point to proving it to an objective observer, she needs some facts to support it. Perhaps she has provided it in earlier posts, but if she has, she should link to those posts. She does not do that.
Let's move on to the next, which would be number 2. Rather than quote there, she does state some obvious stuff, but it isn't unique to Obama. First of all, Turkey is a member of NATO. Our alliance with Turkey has been a long held policy--- it isn't anything new. Now, I've read that Turkey doesn't like its Kurds, but that is not quite the same as saying that they want to wipe them out. Maybe the Turkish leader wants to be "caliph", but she doesn't supply any evidence to show why she knows this. She claims an alliance of this man with ISIS who will slaughter the Kurds and be slaughtered in turn by Erdogan. Perhaps that's a plan, but she supplies no evidence of such a plan. In contrast, Turkish aspirations ran counter to US policies under the Bush administration, which favored the Kurds. Whatever changes Obama made to those maybe attributable to him. But those wouldn't necessarily be new policies as the NATO alliance probably supersedes any understanding with respect to the Kurds.
Well, that presents some difficulties. How do you reconcile differences between two allies who don't like each other much? There's a precedent with respect to Turkey and that is with Greece. Those two don't like each other much either. This is an artifact of history. Greece was once conquered by the Ottomans and were a part of that empire. Barnhardt claims that they want their empire back and that Obama is helping them do that. What has been the US policy with respect to any such latent desires amongst the Turks? Probably not what Barnhardt asserts, so if she claims it, she needs a lot more than what she has presented. Not to say that she's wrong, but she makes some pretty long leaps based upon what exactly?
So much with number 2, let's move on to number 3.
Barnhardt keeps claiming that Obama is a homosexual, but I don't get that. Secondly, that he is an imbecile, which I don't get either. He can hold his own against anybody who he debates with, and that doesn't make him an imbecile. If he was so stupid, he would be easily exposed. Maybe its all a part of a conspiracy that he hasn't been so far. But patience, that may be coming. It may well turn out that he is merely incompetent, but it does look evil sometimes. Obama isn't an imbecile, but he isn't 10 feet tall either.
By the way, she is contradicting herself. If he is an imbecile, he's incompetent, right? She doing what the left was doing with Bush. On the one hand, Bush was an idiot. On the other hand, he was doing things that were demonically evil. He knew things that only a supernatural being would know. I've discussed that before on other forums. I think that phenomenon is likely based upon a personal dislike than upon any basis in fact. Either the man is competent or he isn't. Neither Bush nor Obama can be competent and incompetent at the same time. But that seems to be what Barnhardt is doing. She does this by claiming that he is being handled by those who are really much smarter than he is. The left did that with Bush.
The problem with that is that the president is the only one who can actually do these things. He has the power. Those who serve under him do as he says, not the other way around. Although it is true that his position depends a lot upon people who put him there, but the ultimate power belongs to him. People made that kind of mistake with Hitler. They thought they could control him, but it went the other way around. Our government gives the president a lot more power than what the German government at that time gave Hitler, by the way. If we had a true Hitlerite type, we'd be in big, big trouble. By the sixth year, Hitler had already started WWII. I'd say that's some objective evidence to suggest that although Obama may be bad, he isn't in Hitler territory.
If Obama is being pulled by strings, she needs to show the evidence. I don't see it.
Moving on to number 4, she says the US as it has existed no longer exists.
Here's where she stumbles rather badly. If we were being ruled the way that she claims, neither I nor she could even operate. We'd be arrested and executed already. On that point, 'nuff said. But let's say this---Hitler had his opponents hideously executed. Okay, that's enough.
She says we are being ruled by some rather bad human beings. Well, I think she may have a smidgen of truth there, but it isn't clear that we are not finished as a country and civilization just yet.
I'll finish this one up, as time is getting a bit short.
She says Cruz is a bad guy because his wife works for Goldman Sachs. Another one of her warp speed conclusions. How does that follow?
In short, this is an emotional rant, not an objective piece of analysis. It is based largely upon her dislike of people who do not agree with her. Logic and reason doesn't work that way.
I'm defending logic and reason, not these characters running our government. I'm with Barnhardt on that. But at least I don't confuse objectivity with subjectivity. If I did, I would be ashamed of myself. I think she does, so the conclusion should follow.
Monday, August 11, 2014
Bug on a windshield joke
I saw this one in the comments section on Zero Hedge:
Q: What's the last thing that goes through a bug's mind when it hits the windshield?
A: It's ass.
Bwah hah hah!
Q: What's the last thing that goes through a bug's mind when it hits the windshield?
A: It's ass.
Bwah hah hah!
No war in Iraq
It may have seemed in an earlier post that I favor war in Iraq. That would be incorrect.
A bit of history about Iraq and our involvement there, as I recall it:
Bush asked for and received an authorization of force before he committed troops to the Iraq War. Several Democrats, including NY Senator Hillary Clinton, voted for it. As for myself, I was always very suspicious of moves like this. As it turned out, my suspicions were correct.
All through the war while Bush was in office, the media, which is controlled by the left, kept hounding about his mistake of going into Iraq. I think Bush made a mistake all right. His biggest mistake was to not seek a much broader coalition willing to commit themselves to the war. The war vote depended on too few members who were willing to do that. Consequently, it was a bit too easy for them to back out later. That's the mistake.
We are paying for that mistake in two ways. One was the reaction to the Iraq War that the left ginned up. This gave us Barack Hussein Obama as president, and all that means, which is the second way we are paying.
So, should we go back into Iraq? I'd say no, especially with this president. If there is to be a war, any war, anywhere, it needs broad support first. There should be only a few dissenters, or the show should be off. Otherwise, you run the risk of the spectacle of it becoming a partisan issue. War is serious business that should not be left up to the whims of politicians.
In the long run, we should seriously consider amending the constitution so that the president doesn't have so much power. We are running a significant risk of a dictatorship because there's no accountability in this society. That is a very dangerous combination and explains a lot of what is going today in my opinion.
A bit of history about Iraq and our involvement there, as I recall it:
Bush asked for and received an authorization of force before he committed troops to the Iraq War. Several Democrats, including NY Senator Hillary Clinton, voted for it. As for myself, I was always very suspicious of moves like this. As it turned out, my suspicions were correct.
All through the war while Bush was in office, the media, which is controlled by the left, kept hounding about his mistake of going into Iraq. I think Bush made a mistake all right. His biggest mistake was to not seek a much broader coalition willing to commit themselves to the war. The war vote depended on too few members who were willing to do that. Consequently, it was a bit too easy for them to back out later. That's the mistake.
We are paying for that mistake in two ways. One was the reaction to the Iraq War that the left ginned up. This gave us Barack Hussein Obama as president, and all that means, which is the second way we are paying.
So, should we go back into Iraq? I'd say no, especially with this president. If there is to be a war, any war, anywhere, it needs broad support first. There should be only a few dissenters, or the show should be off. Otherwise, you run the risk of the spectacle of it becoming a partisan issue. War is serious business that should not be left up to the whims of politicians.
In the long run, we should seriously consider amending the constitution so that the president doesn't have so much power. We are running a significant risk of a dictatorship because there's no accountability in this society. That is a very dangerous combination and explains a lot of what is going today in my opinion.
A Train Wreck "Not Very Far Down The Road"
Published on Zero Hedge (http://www.zerohedge.com)
"The Train Wreck Is Coming," David Stockman Warns, "All Hell Will Break Loose"
By Tyler Durden
Created 08/10/2014 - 17:36
"Train wreck is a pretty good term to describe what is coming. But this train wreck isn't simply going to hit a wall out of the blue. Actually, it has been forming and accumulating and expanding for many years now, and yet it has simply been ignored, particularly by the financial markets which have ridden this bubble to these extreme and historic heights. The only issue is, when does it hit the wall? The answer to that question is it's not very far down the road, and I can promise you that is when all hell is going to break loose."
Source URL: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-08-10/train-wreck-coming-david-stockman-warns-all-hell-will-break-loose
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)