Salon is blaming "violent" right wing rhetoric for the Paris atrocities. How many people fall for this? It is the so-called right wing that wants to go after ISIS, Obama doesn't want to very badly. He's afraid some of his snowflakes might get hurt.
Oops! I guess that means I'm guilty of hate speech. Time for the speech police to start arresting all such offenders.
To tell the truth, I'm not all that sold on the idea myself ( of going in there). After all, that's what Bush did, and look what the left did to him.
Of course, if Obama goes in there, he's a hero. If he fouls it all up, and a GOP candidate wins and gets in there and the body bags mount up, who will they start blaming?
The blood isn't on the so-called right wing's hands. It's on Obama's hands. They know it, so they are telling the so-called right to shut up because it's all their fault. Sort of like how they handled Benghazi. There's no video to shift the blame, though. Not yet, anyway. So, without the video, the right-wing can do just fine. The best defense is a good offense.
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, November 14, 2015
Coal ash
I wrote a little bit about clean coal technology awhile back, and this is a bit of an update.
Are the clean coal people pulling our legs about clean coal tech? I am inclined to think not. Here's why in a Wikipedia article about coal ash. Consider these quotes:
I am of the opinion that this is another case in which an energy source is being hampered by hysteria generated by the radical enviornmentalist lobby. Keep in mind that, although Obama was positive about clean coal at one time, he has cooled to the idea lately.
Whatever he does is political in nature. If he moves left, it must be for a reason.
Are the clean coal people pulling our legs about clean coal tech? I am inclined to think not. Here's why in a Wikipedia article about coal ash. Consider these quotes:
- After a long regulatory process, the EPA published a final ruling in December 2014, which establishes that coal fly ash does not have to be classified as a hazardous waste under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA).
- in the case of bituminous coal, with the notable exception of boron, trace element concentrations are generally similar to trace element concentrations in unpolluted soils [ so this causes cancer????]
- As of 2006, about 125 million tons of coal-combustion byproducts, including fly ash, were produced in the U.S. each year, with about 43% of that amount used in commercial applications
Okay, that's enough. It should be noted that this isn't even clean coal sources of ash. In that case, the coal ash is most likely benign.
I am of the opinion that this is another case in which an energy source is being hampered by hysteria generated by the radical enviornmentalist lobby. Keep in mind that, although Obama was positive about clean coal at one time, he has cooled to the idea lately.
Whatever he does is political in nature. If he moves left, it must be for a reason.
Obama before the UN shortly after Benghazi
If you listen to this short excerpt, it may sound okay to you. But there's a problem here. Christians aren't beheading Muslims. The guilty parties for these atrocities are always Islamic.
So, what exactly is Obama saying here? This speech occurs shortly after 4 Americans are killed in Benghazi by what was claimed to be a mob reaction to a video. Or was it a terrorist attack, or a mob reaction? Are we to understand and excuse it even if it was a mob reaction? Maybe Candy Crowley knows the answer to that question.
Insult a Muslim and you must die? But we will only talk ( not actually DO anything ) about how the same Muslims that are always responsible for atrocities, but somehow it is our fault.
Meanwhile, the atrocities continue. Paris has been attacked twice recently. Will we get another reprimand about how this prophet of theirs must not be insulted? What did Paris do this time? Or will we get another reprimand about being intolerant? Were they intolerant? Is this the excuse for the latest atrocity?
So, what exactly is Obama saying here? This speech occurs shortly after 4 Americans are killed in Benghazi by what was claimed to be a mob reaction to a video. Or was it a terrorist attack, or a mob reaction? Are we to understand and excuse it even if it was a mob reaction? Maybe Candy Crowley knows the answer to that question.
Insult a Muslim and you must die? But we will only talk ( not actually DO anything ) about how the same Muslims that are always responsible for atrocities, but somehow it is our fault.
Meanwhile, the atrocities continue. Paris has been attacked twice recently. Will we get another reprimand about how this prophet of theirs must not be insulted? What did Paris do this time? Or will we get another reprimand about being intolerant? Were they intolerant? Is this the excuse for the latest atrocity?
If Republicans want to abolish the IRS
then why only cut corporate taxes to zero?
Besides, aren't the Republicans for limited government? Maybe limited for corporations, not the rest of us.
You see, I don't get where the GOP claims that its pro Constitution, when they should know that the original Constitution did not allow any direct taxes to be laid. It is was necessary to add the 16th Amendment before the income tax became legal.
Come to think of it, it seems that the Constitution avoided acting directly upon the public. This was left to the states. Note that even the states could not do income taxes, if I am not mistaken.
As for cutting corporate taxes to zero, why? What is so great about corporations?
They don't call it the Stupid Party for nothing. The GOP's voters are mostly small business people. The Big Corporate types are typically Democrat. Why help Democrats and take the blame for being for the rich?
Besides, aren't the Republicans for limited government? Maybe limited for corporations, not the rest of us.
You see, I don't get where the GOP claims that its pro Constitution, when they should know that the original Constitution did not allow any direct taxes to be laid. It is was necessary to add the 16th Amendment before the income tax became legal.
Come to think of it, it seems that the Constitution avoided acting directly upon the public. This was left to the states. Note that even the states could not do income taxes, if I am not mistaken.
As for cutting corporate taxes to zero, why? What is so great about corporations?
They don't call it the Stupid Party for nothing. The GOP's voters are mostly small business people. The Big Corporate types are typically Democrat. Why help Democrats and take the blame for being for the rich?
A bit of regret to read this
It was my understanding that the history of Texas was part of the required curriculum in this state. That may not be the case anymore.
The history of Texas is a good example of what can be done about a tyrannical government. Keep in mind that the Texans were badly outnumbered. There were only about 35 thousand white men in Texas at the time of the revolution. Out of this small number, they had to raise and equip an army that could take on Santa Ana, and an entire nation.
The way that history is likely to be taught now is that the US stole Texas away from Mexico. That's wrong. Mexico couldn't settle Texas because the Mexican people were afraid to come here. The Commanches and Apaches were too fierce and the Mexicans were just too darned scared of them to come here. This formed a barrier against settlement. It is true that this barrier was easier to overcome from the north, but the Indians were no less fierce for the Texans as for the Mexicans.
The Mexicans cut off further immigration, which exposed the Texans to the dangers of the Indian tribes. They held Protest Conventions and eventually began to rebel. They were getting beaten badly and almost completely defeated when they got an almost miraculous victory at San Jacinto.
As for the United States, it was mostly sympathetic, but as far as the US military was concerned, Texas was off limits.
Mexico lost to a bunch of what they call pirates. Pirates or Patriots, they still lost. And the US military was not involved at all.
Without that history being told, the popular belief that the US stole Texas will become the norm. Trouble is, it isn't so.
How did Texas become a state then? By the slimmest of margins. Sam Houston wanted a treaty, but that was impossible. It didn't even get a majority in the Senate. Not even close. They had to use a joint resolution to admit Texas to the Union. One may even regard that as unconstitutional, but it happened.
Even the joint resolution almost failed. As for Texas itself, it was offered freedom from Mexico if it didn't join the United States. Both options were on the ballot. The people chose by a 3 to 1 margin to enter the American union.
Although the US took a large portion of Mexican territory in the subsequent war, Texas was already an independent nation and Mexico herself was ready to grant recognition. Texas joined the union. It was only able to do that with a reluctant United States, which was badly divided over the issue of slavery. Anything reported otherwise is false.
Why write this? Only to show that our country is being overrun and that there's nothing being done about it.
If they don't teach this in Texas schools anymore, it could only be because the Mexicans don't like to be reminded that they lost TWO wars. One to Texas and the other to the United States.
The history of Texas is a good example of what can be done about a tyrannical government. Keep in mind that the Texans were badly outnumbered. There were only about 35 thousand white men in Texas at the time of the revolution. Out of this small number, they had to raise and equip an army that could take on Santa Ana, and an entire nation.
The way that history is likely to be taught now is that the US stole Texas away from Mexico. That's wrong. Mexico couldn't settle Texas because the Mexican people were afraid to come here. The Commanches and Apaches were too fierce and the Mexicans were just too darned scared of them to come here. This formed a barrier against settlement. It is true that this barrier was easier to overcome from the north, but the Indians were no less fierce for the Texans as for the Mexicans.
The Mexicans cut off further immigration, which exposed the Texans to the dangers of the Indian tribes. They held Protest Conventions and eventually began to rebel. They were getting beaten badly and almost completely defeated when they got an almost miraculous victory at San Jacinto.
As for the United States, it was mostly sympathetic, but as far as the US military was concerned, Texas was off limits.
Mexico lost to a bunch of what they call pirates. Pirates or Patriots, they still lost. And the US military was not involved at all.
Without that history being told, the popular belief that the US stole Texas will become the norm. Trouble is, it isn't so.
How did Texas become a state then? By the slimmest of margins. Sam Houston wanted a treaty, but that was impossible. It didn't even get a majority in the Senate. Not even close. They had to use a joint resolution to admit Texas to the Union. One may even regard that as unconstitutional, but it happened.
Even the joint resolution almost failed. As for Texas itself, it was offered freedom from Mexico if it didn't join the United States. Both options were on the ballot. The people chose by a 3 to 1 margin to enter the American union.
Although the US took a large portion of Mexican territory in the subsequent war, Texas was already an independent nation and Mexico herself was ready to grant recognition. Texas joined the union. It was only able to do that with a reluctant United States, which was badly divided over the issue of slavery. Anything reported otherwise is false.
Why write this? Only to show that our country is being overrun and that there's nothing being done about it.
If they don't teach this in Texas schools anymore, it could only be because the Mexicans don't like to be reminded that they lost TWO wars. One to Texas and the other to the United States.
Obligatory, 11.14.15; Random thoughts
You have to have a title. I don't know if this ends up as a random thought kind of post, because it all tends to veer back into this word called TRUTH.
Indeed, what is truth? Truth may mean differing things to different people. There is a tendency to equate BELIEF with TRUTH, but the two are definitely not the same thing. An example? The people who arrested Galileo did not believe Galileo was telling the truth, as they believed that they were the ones in possession of the TRUTH. If you believe the way those people believed, you would be considered in these modern times to be an ignoramus. Certainly, the people in Galileo's time and Galileo himself could not both be right. Postmodernism hadn't been invented yet. Yes, my dear snowflakes, only one of them had to be right and the other had to be wrong. We now know who was right and who was wrong. Galileo was definitely in the minority in his time. But notice what is believed can change. The TRUTH itself is unchangeable. It is eternal. Sort of like God.
Let me segue into what I read on Limbaugh's page yesterday. Limbaugh said that Clinton believed in his own lies. Hello? Anybody home there in the office of the mayor of "Realville"? If Clinton believed in what he said, how can he be lying? Clearly, there must be some confusion in "Realville" about what the word "lying" means. So, what does lying actually mean? I could point to the dictionary and get that out, but won't. My understanding of lying requires that you know what the TRUTH is. If you believe that you know what the TRUTH is, and you speak to that effect, even though it may be wrong, it isn't necessarily lying. Lying means to know the truth and DECEIVE another about it so as to prevent the other from knowing the TRUTH. Clinton could not believe his own lies then and be lying at the same time. This is a logical contradiction. I think the word for it is called a tautology. Therefore, like the people in Galileo's time, if Clinton is wrong, and he believes in what he is saying is right, then he can certainly not be lying about it. No, he would just be wrong.
Just for the record, it bears remembering that Bill Clinton was caught red handed in one big fat lie about Monica Lewinski. How can he not be having sex with Monica Lewinski and have his semen stains on her blue dress? If he believed that he wasn't having sex with Monica Lewinski, then he was like Bruce Jenner in a sense. Bruce Jenner thinks he's a she, but that is impossible. There's something wrong upstairs in Bruce Jenner's head if he truly believes he's a she. Girls don't become fathers. And semen stains appear on a dress because of what? The dog surely didn't pee on it.
The accusation of lying is abused in my opinion. That in itself could be a form of lying.
Why do people lie? It must spring forth as all actions do--- from some type of motivation. The motivations can be amongst many, but it can be distilled down into one general one, if I may be so bold. People lie in order to get something that they wouldn't get if they were truthful. To put it in another way, a liar seeks to get an advantage.
Now some amongst the conservative side would say to me---who's side are you on? Why are you defending Clinton, and criticizing Rush? Don't you know that these Clintonoids are no good? Rush is the good guy. Yes, I suspect that the Clintonoids aren't so good. But fighting them with more evil isn't necessarily going to produce anything good. To defeat the Clintons, one must remain faithful to the truth. But you should always be faithful to the truth. What is it about the Clintons that makes you want to deviate from that?
This was supposed to be a random thought kind of post, but it seems not to be at the moment. You don't like it? Sue me. Bwah, hah, hah!
Seriously, I don't want you to sue me. I don't want you to beat me up. I just want you to read my blog. Pretty please. With sugar on it, even. Okay, I might be lying. Just a little about that. Sometimes, when you tell the truth about someone, you are likely going to produce some anger. The truth is that I would rather make you mad than have you read my blog. If my blog offends you, it can only be because you do not respect the truth. I try to. Really, I do. And that is definitely no joke. Even if it turns people off so bad that they won't come back to my blog.
Notice that I emphasize the word try. I am only human and I am subject to error. I realize certain of us are snowflakes and are never capable of even the smallest mistake. Ever, ever, ever. But I cannot be confused with the snowflakes. I make my share of mistakes, believe you me.
Maybe that is enough for now. Maybe the snowflakes can take just so much.
Indeed, what is truth? Truth may mean differing things to different people. There is a tendency to equate BELIEF with TRUTH, but the two are definitely not the same thing. An example? The people who arrested Galileo did not believe Galileo was telling the truth, as they believed that they were the ones in possession of the TRUTH. If you believe the way those people believed, you would be considered in these modern times to be an ignoramus. Certainly, the people in Galileo's time and Galileo himself could not both be right. Postmodernism hadn't been invented yet. Yes, my dear snowflakes, only one of them had to be right and the other had to be wrong. We now know who was right and who was wrong. Galileo was definitely in the minority in his time. But notice what is believed can change. The TRUTH itself is unchangeable. It is eternal. Sort of like God.
Let me segue into what I read on Limbaugh's page yesterday. Limbaugh said that Clinton believed in his own lies. Hello? Anybody home there in the office of the mayor of "Realville"? If Clinton believed in what he said, how can he be lying? Clearly, there must be some confusion in "Realville" about what the word "lying" means. So, what does lying actually mean? I could point to the dictionary and get that out, but won't. My understanding of lying requires that you know what the TRUTH is. If you believe that you know what the TRUTH is, and you speak to that effect, even though it may be wrong, it isn't necessarily lying. Lying means to know the truth and DECEIVE another about it so as to prevent the other from knowing the TRUTH. Clinton could not believe his own lies then and be lying at the same time. This is a logical contradiction. I think the word for it is called a tautology. Therefore, like the people in Galileo's time, if Clinton is wrong, and he believes in what he is saying is right, then he can certainly not be lying about it. No, he would just be wrong.
Just for the record, it bears remembering that Bill Clinton was caught red handed in one big fat lie about Monica Lewinski. How can he not be having sex with Monica Lewinski and have his semen stains on her blue dress? If he believed that he wasn't having sex with Monica Lewinski, then he was like Bruce Jenner in a sense. Bruce Jenner thinks he's a she, but that is impossible. There's something wrong upstairs in Bruce Jenner's head if he truly believes he's a she. Girls don't become fathers. And semen stains appear on a dress because of what? The dog surely didn't pee on it.
The accusation of lying is abused in my opinion. That in itself could be a form of lying.
Why do people lie? It must spring forth as all actions do--- from some type of motivation. The motivations can be amongst many, but it can be distilled down into one general one, if I may be so bold. People lie in order to get something that they wouldn't get if they were truthful. To put it in another way, a liar seeks to get an advantage.
Now some amongst the conservative side would say to me---who's side are you on? Why are you defending Clinton, and criticizing Rush? Don't you know that these Clintonoids are no good? Rush is the good guy. Yes, I suspect that the Clintonoids aren't so good. But fighting them with more evil isn't necessarily going to produce anything good. To defeat the Clintons, one must remain faithful to the truth. But you should always be faithful to the truth. What is it about the Clintons that makes you want to deviate from that?
This was supposed to be a random thought kind of post, but it seems not to be at the moment. You don't like it? Sue me. Bwah, hah, hah!
Seriously, I don't want you to sue me. I don't want you to beat me up. I just want you to read my blog. Pretty please. With sugar on it, even. Okay, I might be lying. Just a little about that. Sometimes, when you tell the truth about someone, you are likely going to produce some anger. The truth is that I would rather make you mad than have you read my blog. If my blog offends you, it can only be because you do not respect the truth. I try to. Really, I do. And that is definitely no joke. Even if it turns people off so bad that they won't come back to my blog.
Notice that I emphasize the word try. I am only human and I am subject to error. I realize certain of us are snowflakes and are never capable of even the smallest mistake. Ever, ever, ever. But I cannot be confused with the snowflakes. I make my share of mistakes, believe you me.
Maybe that is enough for now. Maybe the snowflakes can take just so much.
Friday, November 13, 2015
The Rape of Sweden
h/t BMEWS
It's hard to watch this. It pisses me off.
It's not enough to say it. You're gonna have to do something about it. Yes, and that may hurt. I'm sure the little snowflakes cannot bear the thought of that.
It's hard to watch this. It pisses me off.
It's not enough to say it. You're gonna have to do something about it. Yes, and that may hurt. I'm sure the little snowflakes cannot bear the thought of that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)