Don't recall ever hearing of Gab until a few minutes ago.
Gab is being censored for the shooter's acts, and the fact that the Pittsburgh shooter had a page on Gab.
The discussion, at the article linked above, mentions how the same shooter had a Twitter account, but was not banned.
This kind of thing is likely to draw continued protests from those who want our media to be held more accountable to the truth.
The best way to hold a company accountable is to stop buying their products. But in order to buy their products, another product has to be available. There is an effort to keep others from providing that product to the information consumer.
One thing I know: that the media leaves a great deal to be desired. Let's hope that Gab gets back up and running soon.
I found the mention of Gab on Whatfinger, which is an alternative to Drudge. Drudge is not reliable anymore. The mention more specifically came through Fellowship of the Minds blog, which is what Whatfinger mentions. In other words, I am finding alternative means of getting information.
After reading their "about page", Fellowship of the Minds was also shut down recently. They are only getting back online.
Clearly, an attempt at censorship is taking place.
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, October 30, 2018
Pat Buchanan: This isn't 1968 Redux, at least, not yet
He quotes some statistics to back it up.
Note: the title is not a quote from his op-ed. I made up the title myself. It was paraphrased from his reading his piece.
Is This Worse Than ’68? https://t.co/QSjDzkiZML— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 30, 2018
comment:
With all the talk of "war", this may be what these people are talking about. Evidently, the left seems to think that this paid off for them back then, so they may well attempt it in this era.
To put things in perspective even more, this country reached some heights back then that have not been reached since. For example, the first trip around the moon and back occurred in 1968. Also, the gdp in terms of gold has never been equaled nor surpassed since about that time.
Actor James Cromwell warns of 'revolution': 'There will be blood in the streets' if Democrats lose
Washington Times via Free Republic
Based upon incomplete information, the impression this guy is leaving seems like a threat.
What is the difference in meaning between the words "threat" and "warning"?
A threat seems boorish, whereas a warning sounds less boorish. It is boorish to demand something that you must comply with, or face violence. A warning may be vague, or it may be specific. However, if it is specific as to consequences, then that is fair enough.
But, all the same-- warning or threatening violence sounds like they want something to which they are not entitled. Nobody is entitled to overthrow the government. So, this is a warning from me to those like this guy--- if unwarranted and unjustifiable attempts to encroach upon anything to which I have a stake and hold valuable, I will definitely be willing to fight.
If Trump wins, there is no excuse for political violence. None of the sort should be accepted. That's regardless of who wins. However, the majority does not have the right to disregard the Constitution. The Constitution is sovereign. Nobody can hold power and remain legitimate without remaining in compliance with this fundamental law.
If the liberals win, they may attempt to do things that the law forbids. That is to say, if the law actually means anything to anybody anymore in this country. In such a case as that, you should be prepared to make it plain to these people that no such move shall be undertaken.
That is why so-called conservatives should be organizing, but they are not. All this talk about having weapons means nothing if the government has the authority. Government power will over-match individual powers. It is wishful thinking and possibly disingenuous to say otherwise.
Who does this guy speak for, anyway? He has no such standing, unless some entity elects him for something.
More circuses? Possibly. He cannot execute any such threat.
More info.... He is the son of a director who was blacklisted during the McCarthy period. Is he a communist? To threaten revolution over a lost election is not necessarily evidence of communism, but this guy is over the top.
Based upon incomplete information, the impression this guy is leaving seems like a threat.
What is the difference in meaning between the words "threat" and "warning"?
A threat seems boorish, whereas a warning sounds less boorish. It is boorish to demand something that you must comply with, or face violence. A warning may be vague, or it may be specific. However, if it is specific as to consequences, then that is fair enough.
But, all the same-- warning or threatening violence sounds like they want something to which they are not entitled. Nobody is entitled to overthrow the government. So, this is a warning from me to those like this guy--- if unwarranted and unjustifiable attempts to encroach upon anything to which I have a stake and hold valuable, I will definitely be willing to fight.
If Trump wins, there is no excuse for political violence. None of the sort should be accepted. That's regardless of who wins. However, the majority does not have the right to disregard the Constitution. The Constitution is sovereign. Nobody can hold power and remain legitimate without remaining in compliance with this fundamental law.
If the liberals win, they may attempt to do things that the law forbids. That is to say, if the law actually means anything to anybody anymore in this country. In such a case as that, you should be prepared to make it plain to these people that no such move shall be undertaken.
That is why so-called conservatives should be organizing, but they are not. All this talk about having weapons means nothing if the government has the authority. Government power will over-match individual powers. It is wishful thinking and possibly disingenuous to say otherwise.
Who does this guy speak for, anyway? He has no such standing, unless some entity elects him for something.
More circuses? Possibly. He cannot execute any such threat.
More info.... He is the son of a director who was blacklisted during the McCarthy period. Is he a communist? To threaten revolution over a lost election is not necessarily evidence of communism, but this guy is over the top.
When you would rather be in another line of business
Updated:
10.30.18:
Same feeling this morning. Actually, I think it is a reason why I cannot find anything to write about. The stuff that is worth writing about gathers little attention. Everything that gathers the attention of the public is this stupid stuff that the media fastens onto every day.
It is almost like try to live on cotton candy as your only food. If you feed your mind with this cotton candy, you will get sick and die. Such is the case with our culture. This garbage is not good for us.
There are a few "nuggets of gold" out there. The gold metaphor is apt, because this other stuff is junk. The junk is what you have to "pan out" in order to get the nuggets. You know what I mean, Vern?
10.29.18:
Good thing I don't get paid for this. The reason is that you have to put up content every single day, and there's some days that it is really hard to do that.
What do you say about a mass murder? It follows the same pattern that has been followed again and again. The response is the same old thing, too.
We don't focus on the solutions. Nope. It is always the conflict that brings people to the fore. If you solved this kind of problem, you would get a lot of bored people.
Yes, I have written about conflict versus solutions before. Not that this gets any attention and serious consideration. It isn't entertaining enough. People would rather suffer and die than to actually roll up their sleeves and solve a problem.
Bread and circuses. That's the ticket. You cannot argue against the reality of things. The reality is that people simply will not focus on how to solve problems like this, or any other problem for that matter.
10.30.18:
Same feeling this morning. Actually, I think it is a reason why I cannot find anything to write about. The stuff that is worth writing about gathers little attention. Everything that gathers the attention of the public is this stupid stuff that the media fastens onto every day.
It is almost like try to live on cotton candy as your only food. If you feed your mind with this cotton candy, you will get sick and die. Such is the case with our culture. This garbage is not good for us.
There are a few "nuggets of gold" out there. The gold metaphor is apt, because this other stuff is junk. The junk is what you have to "pan out" in order to get the nuggets. You know what I mean, Vern?
10.29.18:
Good thing I don't get paid for this. The reason is that you have to put up content every single day, and there's some days that it is really hard to do that.
What do you say about a mass murder? It follows the same pattern that has been followed again and again. The response is the same old thing, too.
We don't focus on the solutions. Nope. It is always the conflict that brings people to the fore. If you solved this kind of problem, you would get a lot of bored people.
Yes, I have written about conflict versus solutions before. Not that this gets any attention and serious consideration. It isn't entertaining enough. People would rather suffer and die than to actually roll up their sleeves and solve a problem.
Bread and circuses. That's the ticket. You cannot argue against the reality of things. The reality is that people simply will not focus on how to solve problems like this, or any other problem for that matter.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Lite posting.
I'm in beautiful downtown Irving Texas for my follow up MRI.
Those things are a pain in the butt.
Be back soon youse guys.
Update @ sundown:
Back again. This is a lot like work. One good thing about it. I get to get away from the bugs. As soon as I got back, I was greeted by a swarm of bugs.
Bugs gotta bug.
Those things are a pain in the butt.
Be back soon youse guys.
Update @ sundown:
Back again. This is a lot like work. One good thing about it. I get to get away from the bugs. As soon as I got back, I was greeted by a swarm of bugs.
Bugs gotta bug.
Spidey-Senses.
Sundance has spidey senses.
Be sure not to get splattered my friend, cuz spiders are scary to some people.
Be sure not to get splattered my friend, cuz spiders are scary to some people.
Spidey-Senses... https://t.co/Y4ih5WAFWY via @thelastrefuge2— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) October 29, 2018
Sunday, October 28, 2018
Who do you believe?
This has got the problem of the ages. Who do you trust to give you the truth?
Do you trust Conservatives? Liberals? Middle of the road types? Libertarians? Or, Fascists? Communists? Catholics? Protestants?
In short, who do you trust to tell it like it is?
No matter what group you follow, they all have a bias in their own favor. That is the unavoidable fact. Yes, I'd say Christians too, even though they are not supposed to.
Can you think of someone who was less biased in his own behalf than Jesus of Nazareth? He didn't save himself from the cross. It would have been so easy to do so.
Now, the question remains: who do you trust? Maybe you could trust Jesus of Nazareth, but that was 2000 years ago, and it didn't help him at all. It doesn't help when those who say they honor him do not.
See what I mean? Maybe you cannot trust anybody. But that isn't an option either. You have to trust somebody, but nobody seems to be worthy of it.
It is a problem.
The assumption is that people want the truth. Leave aside the truth, then it becomes what do you want to believe? Ultimately, for many people today, truth is whatever you want to believe. That is a subjective approach to the subject. It conflicts with the objective approach. The objective truth is what is true regardless of how you feel about it.
If objectivity isn't desired, then truth isn't desired. Because the truth is independent of desire. It matters not what you want if you want truth. You would have to set aside your desires, and accept the truth for what it is. People are not likely to want to do that these days. In fact, it appears that the culture is training people to see truth as whatever they want it to be.
The alternative is acceptance. Fighting the truth is only going to make things worse.
Once you are prepared to accept the truth, then you have to be prepared to seek it. Otherwise, it is meaningless to accept what you do not wish to know.
You have to decide then who to believe, even though everybody seems to be pushing their own biases in their own favor.
You can believe someone who does not have anything to gain from what they claim to be true. How do you determine that? You have to do some work to get at it. Getting the truth is not necessarily easy when there are those who are standing in the way of having it revealed.
The person who stands in the way of truth should not be readily believed.
Now why write all this?
It seems that people are falling for too much stuff that cannot be true. For somebody has to be right, and somebody has to be wrong. But nobody wants to admit that they are wrong, for they may have something to lose if they were to make such an admission. Conflicting stories cannot both be true.
You have to decide who to believe and who to trust. Hopefully, the choice will be the correct one.
Republicans or Democrats? Gonna have to choose.
I choose Republican. But I am of that inclination anyway. If you are of a Democrat inclination, then why would you believe me? I think the Republicans tend more toward the objective than the Democrats. The Democrats are quite open about their desires to push the subjective buttons. I don't trust them.
But I don't trust the GOP either. One thing I believe though. That they cannot afford to betray their stated principles, and as long as Trump doesn't betray those, they cannot impeach him. Their credibility is at stake.
I don't believe that Trump should be forced out. Furthermore, I don't think there has been probable cause for the Mueller investigation. I suspect the investigation is being pursued for political reasons by those who have something to gain or lose. This is an abuse of power. The fault then lies with those who impeach the president, and not the president himself.
There are a lot of distractions out there, and I won't comment upon those. This matter of credibility is the central issue for me. The rest pales in comparison.
Do you trust Conservatives? Liberals? Middle of the road types? Libertarians? Or, Fascists? Communists? Catholics? Protestants?
In short, who do you trust to tell it like it is?
No matter what group you follow, they all have a bias in their own favor. That is the unavoidable fact. Yes, I'd say Christians too, even though they are not supposed to.
Can you think of someone who was less biased in his own behalf than Jesus of Nazareth? He didn't save himself from the cross. It would have been so easy to do so.
Now, the question remains: who do you trust? Maybe you could trust Jesus of Nazareth, but that was 2000 years ago, and it didn't help him at all. It doesn't help when those who say they honor him do not.
See what I mean? Maybe you cannot trust anybody. But that isn't an option either. You have to trust somebody, but nobody seems to be worthy of it.
It is a problem.
The assumption is that people want the truth. Leave aside the truth, then it becomes what do you want to believe? Ultimately, for many people today, truth is whatever you want to believe. That is a subjective approach to the subject. It conflicts with the objective approach. The objective truth is what is true regardless of how you feel about it.
If objectivity isn't desired, then truth isn't desired. Because the truth is independent of desire. It matters not what you want if you want truth. You would have to set aside your desires, and accept the truth for what it is. People are not likely to want to do that these days. In fact, it appears that the culture is training people to see truth as whatever they want it to be.
The alternative is acceptance. Fighting the truth is only going to make things worse.
Once you are prepared to accept the truth, then you have to be prepared to seek it. Otherwise, it is meaningless to accept what you do not wish to know.
You have to decide then who to believe, even though everybody seems to be pushing their own biases in their own favor.
You can believe someone who does not have anything to gain from what they claim to be true. How do you determine that? You have to do some work to get at it. Getting the truth is not necessarily easy when there are those who are standing in the way of having it revealed.
The person who stands in the way of truth should not be readily believed.
Now why write all this?
It seems that people are falling for too much stuff that cannot be true. For somebody has to be right, and somebody has to be wrong. But nobody wants to admit that they are wrong, for they may have something to lose if they were to make such an admission. Conflicting stories cannot both be true.
You have to decide who to believe and who to trust. Hopefully, the choice will be the correct one.
Republicans or Democrats? Gonna have to choose.
I choose Republican. But I am of that inclination anyway. If you are of a Democrat inclination, then why would you believe me? I think the Republicans tend more toward the objective than the Democrats. The Democrats are quite open about their desires to push the subjective buttons. I don't trust them.
But I don't trust the GOP either. One thing I believe though. That they cannot afford to betray their stated principles, and as long as Trump doesn't betray those, they cannot impeach him. Their credibility is at stake.
I don't believe that Trump should be forced out. Furthermore, I don't think there has been probable cause for the Mueller investigation. I suspect the investigation is being pursued for political reasons by those who have something to gain or lose. This is an abuse of power. The fault then lies with those who impeach the president, and not the president himself.
There are a lot of distractions out there, and I won't comment upon those. This matter of credibility is the central issue for me. The rest pales in comparison.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)