Damn. There I go, still writing BC on my cheques …
I JUST WANT TO REASSURE ALL OUR FRIENDS ON THE LEFT: Trump is not going to put you all in camps and install a Nazi state. He can’t, because George W. Bush already put you all in camps and installed a Nazi state. Oh, wait, he never got to do it, because we were already all dead in the nuclear war our cowboy president, Ronald Reagan, started by talking tough to the Russians. And that is when I got to the States. I’m sure people who’ve been here longer can explain to you how other republican administrations already destroyed everything, ALL THE THINGS WITH ALL THE DRAMA, in the most terrible way. Sorry guys the song has gone thin and only children believe the lyrics anymore. And honestly? That’s only because they haven’t seen the drama you guys create long enough to know better.
Just a reality check this morning.
OMG, the disposable rain gear on the movers and shakers of the world.
Did I hear about this here or somewhere else?..
Chelsea is being groomed to take Chuck Schumer’s Senate seat whenever he retires.
Yay! I mean, Chuck is evil on purpose, it won’t be Chelsea’s fault.
This argument about the number of people who saw the inauguration is getting silly. And one thing I’m finding really interesting so far is that it’s possible both sides are right, but they aren’t using the same metric.
Trump’s people are taking Neilson ratings and running with them. Trump’s are taking those and then adding in web feeds… and if you do that then it’s a landslide in his favor. 30 million or so watched on TV, and somethign like 15 million watched it just on CNN. Add in Fox, MSNBC, and NBC, and Youtube, and Facebook, wow, they smashed the numbers.
Now, was anyone counting Obama’s numbers like that, or are we looking at modern passing records compared to 1950’s passing records? Is this the new math?
As far as the crowd at the event itself, I can’t estimate crowds, but the picture the AP uses to compare crowd sizes is obviously incorrect.
Look at the time hacks. Not to mention violent protests, burning cars, broken windows, blocked access points, the crowd was smaller, I’m sure, the weather was crap, the violence was sounding scary.
I’ve seen both of these pictures before, and they have been described as being taken shortly before 12. And the right side of the left image is about twice as full.
In any case, is this what we have to look forward to now. The press and the administration arguing about stupid bullshit and both sides trying to win the propaganda war?
Chelsea hasn’t done anything to upset me yet. I’ll give her a pass until she does.
600k a year for not being on TV? I think someone worked out she made 30k a minute she was on air or something. It’s not so much that she worked out an awesome deal, but that an awesome deal was made for her. OR maybe presiding over some portion of the Clinton Foundation.
People talk about Trump’s lack of connection to the common man. But while he’s made gaffes, I’d venture to say that very few of them are rich dude not in touch with common people type gaffes. I’d imagine Chelsea wouldn’t even know how to communicate with a sheet metal worker, or high rise monkey, or black jack dealer, or used car salesman, while Trump could have pretty reasonable conversations with them.
I’ll admit I haven’t spent any time researching anything she’s done or been connected to.
I am constantly irritated in conversations with my progressive or liberal acquaintances that I am the one that is expected to censor my speech so they aren’t offended.
The people I’m talking to have no problem telling me “don’t go there” or “we’re not getting political” when I’m talking about every day life, while they can regale me with stories of their escapades through privilege checking, protests, and alternative lifestyles.
I have a couple friends that I disagree with and we both avoid contentious subjects and a couple that we look for subjects to “discuss.” but there are people who think I just shouldn’t bring up my right leaning libertarian ideas in polite company.
Right, those who preach tolerance are frequently the ones who are militantly intolerant.
I don’t always agree with Matt Walsh, but I enjoy reading his views:
I can pretty much agree with that one. I’m sick of people parading something in front of me and insisting that I approve. Um, I don’t have to approve… I didn’t seek it out, and I’m not necessarily condemning, but I don’t have to approve, endorse, encourage, etc. Also, some people confuse accepting and approving. I can accept the reality that a person claims to be a chicken, but I don’t have to agree that everyone should act like chickens.
I do enjoy his parody videos:
Just in case you missed the memo.
I had an epiphany.
There are people who think the job of the government is to cause social change through the passing of laws. And that you can change society by imposing force from outside, and that’s what the government is for.
No wonder they are scared of Trump and Pence.
Society creates laws to match what the agreed upon morality is. As society changes we’re supposed to vote for people who agree with us to make the government match us. Not have the government make everyone else behave the way we do.
My God, it’s full of stars…
Does this mean they think murder is against the law to try to get people to not kill each other? It’s against the law so we can punish murderers. People decided it was wrong, so they asked the government to punish it.
Was the great push to legalize gay marriage because they thought people who didn’t approve would all of a sudden be OK with it? Do they have no internal morals themselves? Does the fact that something is illegal stop them from doing it? If you pass a law saying you have to care about something, does that mean you care?
Not to say that there isn’t any social engineering going on in any law, but to think that it’s acceptable to pick a end result and then pass laws so it will happen is amazing. I’m in favor of laws that provide protection from actions, not that mandate actions, because I think we’re all free to choose our actions within our lane.
I have to think about this.
Those people are part of a problem, not part of a solution. Moreover, they’re trying to impose solutions to nonexistent problems on those that are more rational than they.
Those people are what so-called “institutions of higher learning” are churning out… indoctrinated sheeple. As evidenced in conversations between my step-daughter (sheeple) and step-son (rational). One of them thought a "vegan butcher shop’ was a great idea. Think on that one and see if it doesn’t make your brain hurt.
Yeah, pretty much with you on this stuff. Not a shock, I’m sure.
Well, I know how I could make it a great idea… but likely not the way she meant. I’d sell all the latest and greatest meat alternatives and flavorings, along with supplements and vegan cookbooks. And I’d style it after a hippy dippy crunchy pot dream of what a butcher is. And I’d print money for about 6 months and then sell it before it crashed.
Mentioned “vegan butcher shop” to Ookwife. Her first thought was that it is a place where they sell and chop up veggies and other fresh produce.
Still trying to get “vegan butcher shop” categorized though. The contradiction in that makes it fun.
When the topic came up, step-son’s first hit for definition was something along the lines of “one who rends meat”. The first line of the wiki is “A butcher is a person who may slaughter animals, dress their flesh, sell their meat or do any combination of these three tasks.” Animal/flesh/meat… yeah, that would appeal to a vegan! Oxymoron is the most kind way I can describe “vegan butcher shop”.