Again, it is perhaps absurd to make our happy man a solitary, because no man would choose the possession of all goods in the world on the condition of solitariness, man being a social animal and formed by nature for living with others. Of course the happy man has this qualification since he has all those things which are good by nature: and it is obvious that the society of friends and good men must be preferable to that of strangers and ordinary people, and we conclude therefore, that the happy man does need friends.
This includes both Material goods as well as social goods. After all, which man would want to be all alone, sharing nothing with society, or at least family and friends?
I recently stayed at home, while my wife, sister-in-law, and foster-son went to visit my parents for the day. By the end of the day, I was pacing like a caged animal, and wondering what time they'd be coming home. It's the small things such as people in the house that make a man happy.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
On #Aristotle Ethicas: Friendship
Some will say that they who are blessed and independent have no need of friends, for they already hall that is good, and so, as being independent, want nothing further. Whereas, the notion of a friend's office is to be as it were a second self and procure for a man that he cannot get by himself.
It is evident that even the most highly successful men will need friends. This is even if it is only to talk and share companionship. There is an inborne and deeply spiritual need to have society and to share news.
It is evident that even the most highly successful men will need friends. This is even if it is only to talk and share companionship. There is an inborne and deeply spiritual need to have society and to share news.
Sunday, June 05, 2011
On #Aristotle Ethicas: On Payments
They are certainly fairly found fault who take the money in advance and then do nothing of what they said they woud do, their promises having been so far beyond their ability; for such men do not perform what they agreed, The sophists, however, are perhaps obliged to take this course, because no one would give a sixpence for their knowledge. These then, I say, are fairly found fault with, because they do not what they have already taken money for doing.
This sounds like most politicians to me, alway taking first, and making grand promises that he can never deliver. And then he always blame his failures on the other party, the DC Crowd, even the voters themselves.
What people don't know, is that most politicians never mean to keep their campaign promises.
This sounds like most politicians to me, alway taking first, and making grand promises that he can never deliver. And then he always blame his failures on the other party, the DC Crowd, even the voters themselves.
What people don't know, is that most politicians never mean to keep their campaign promises.
On #Aristotle Ethicas: Honor and Property
This is plainly the principle acted upon in political communities: he receives no honor who gives no good to the common stock: for the property of the public is given to him who does good to the public, and honour is the property of the public; it is not possible both to make money out of the public and receive honour likewise; because no on will put up with the less in every respect: so to him who suffers loss as regards money, they award honour, but money to him who can be paid by gifts since as has been stated before, the observing due proportion equalises and preserves friendships.
The keyword here is give, as in a voluntary contribution. However, in today's world, voluntary is a dirty word, as the government, by force, takes what it wants from you. Politicians take money from everyone and give it to people who are useless drags on society.
The keyword here is give, as in a voluntary contribution. However, in today's world, voluntary is a dirty word, as the government, by force, takes what it wants from you. Politicians take money from everyone and give it to people who are useless drags on society.
Monday, May 30, 2011
On #Aristotles Ethicas: Friendships
Quarrels arise also in those friendships in which the parties are unequal because each party thinks himself entitled to the greater share, and of course, when this happens, the friendship is broken u. The man who is better thinks that having the greater share pertains to him of right, for that more is always awarded to the good man: and similarly the man who is more profitable to another than that other to him: "One who is useless," they say, "ought not to share equally,for it comes to a tax, and not a friendship, unless the fruits of the friendship are reaped in proportion the works done." Their notion being, that s in money, partnership they who contribute more receive more so should it be in friendship likewise. On the other hand, the needy man and the less virtuous advance the opposite claim. They urge that "it is the very business of a good friend to help those who are in need, else what is the use of having a good for powerful friend if one is not to reap the advantage at all?"
Unfortunately, the government seems to think in the same way, except that they take by force, (Taxes, seizures, outright theft,) rather than let the people give what they want to who they want. Then the government keeps 75 percent of the take for administrative fees.
Unfortunately, the government seems to think in the same way, except that they take by force, (Taxes, seizures, outright theft,) rather than let the people give what they want to who they want. Then the government keeps 75 percent of the take for administrative fees.
On #Aristotles Ethicas: Family Life
Between Husband and Wife the relation takes the form of aristocracy, because he rules by right and in such points only the husband should, and give to the wife all that befits her to have.
That's right, I try to give my wife everything she needs. However, I don't always give her what she wants. But then, I don't always get what I want either.
That's right, I try to give my wife everything she needs. However, I don't always give her what she wants. But then, I don't always get what I want either.
On #Aristotles Ethicas: Communities and Friendships
Furthermore, friendship seems to be the bond of social communities and legislators seem to be more anxious to secure it than justice even.
If the Aforementioned are how communities are supposed to form, then todays legislators, in an effort to stay employed have set us one against the other. This has the effect of making us strangers to one another, where we are strangers, we don't watch out for each other.
I see it every day in our communities where children form gangs and go to war with each other, and where the law enforcement officers don't have the equipment to protect themselves, and the magistrates and city officials mudsling at each other.
This isn't how communities are supposed to work, we are all to be neighbors and help each other when needed.
If the Aforementioned are how communities are supposed to form, then todays legislators, in an effort to stay employed have set us one against the other. This has the effect of making us strangers to one another, where we are strangers, we don't watch out for each other.
I see it every day in our communities where children form gangs and go to war with each other, and where the law enforcement officers don't have the equipment to protect themselves, and the magistrates and city officials mudsling at each other.
This isn't how communities are supposed to work, we are all to be neighbors and help each other when needed.
On #Aristotles Ethicas: Communities
Again, it seems to be implanted in us by Nature: As, for instance, in the parent towards the offspring and the offspring, towards the parent, and in those of the same tribe towards one another, and specially men of the same nation; for which reason we commend those men who love their fellows: and one may see in the course of travel how close of kin and how friendly man is to man.
This is seems, is how communities and countries were supposed to be. Where man take care of his neighbors voluntarily, there are communities.
This is seems, is how communities and countries were supposed to be. Where man take care of his neighbors voluntarily, there are communities.
Sunday, May 22, 2011
On #Aristotle Ethicas: Practical Wisdom in Politics
Again, that is thought to be practical wisdom in the most proper sense which has for its object the interest of the individual: and this usually appropriates the common name: the others are called respectively Domestic Management, Legislation, Executive Government divided into two branches, Deliberative and Judicial. Now, of course, knowledge for one's self is one kind of knowledge, but it admits of many shades of difference: and it is a common notion that the man who knows and busies himself about his own concerns merely is the man of practical wisdom, while they who extend their solicitude to society at large are considered meddlesome.
I am guessing that in Aristotle's time, these people used to be chosen because of their wisdom, however, today our legislators have knowledge of management, and get chosen only because they are either the lesser of two evils, or because they trick a dumb downed populace to vote for them.
I am guessing that in Aristotle's time, these people used to be chosen because of their wisdom, however, today our legislators have knowledge of management, and get chosen only because they are either the lesser of two evils, or because they trick a dumb downed populace to vote for them.
On #Aristotle Ethicas: Government, Masters, Workmen
Of practical wisdom exerted upon a community that which I would call the Supreme is the faculty of Legislation; the subordinate, which is concerned with the details, generally has the common name politics, and its functions are action and deliberation (for the particular enactment is a matter of action, being the ultimate issue of this branch of practical wisdom, and therefore people commonly say, that these men alone are really engaged in government, because they alone act, filling the same place relatively to legislators, that workmen do to a master.)
It should be noted that the "Master" that Aristotle speaks of, is the body of people that chose them to serve. From people who served with the greatest with the greatest of intentions, we have devolved to self serving idiots that care only about money and being re-elected.
It should be noted that the "Master" that Aristotle speaks of, is the body of people that chose them to serve. From people who served with the greatest with the greatest of intentions, we have devolved to self serving idiots that care only about money and being re-elected.
Friday, May 20, 2011
On #Aristotle Ethicas: Domestic Management and Government
For this reason we think Pericles and men of that stamp to be practically wise, because they can see what is good for themselves and for men in general, and we also think those to be such who are skilled in domestic management or civil government.
For the last 20 years or so, I've noticed that we seem to have gone from skilled domestic management or skilled civil government to people who have no skills in either branch. Because if this were true, we wouldn't have budget shortfalls, and individual states wouldn't need to depend upon the federal government for anything.
Since our so-called domestic managers have actually never worked in any other field than politics, they've never had to manage their money, or worry about a paycheck. If they had, they'd know how to balance a budget, and/or cut programs that don't and have never worked.
Maybe what we need are people who've actually worked for a living, to be our representatives, and we should make them live in the area where they are elected, and not in DC. That might do some good.
For the last 20 years or so, I've noticed that we seem to have gone from skilled domestic management or skilled civil government to people who have no skills in either branch. Because if this were true, we wouldn't have budget shortfalls, and individual states wouldn't need to depend upon the federal government for anything.
Since our so-called domestic managers have actually never worked in any other field than politics, they've never had to manage their money, or worry about a paycheck. If they had, they'd know how to balance a budget, and/or cut programs that don't and have never worked.
Maybe what we need are people who've actually worked for a living, to be our representatives, and we should make them live in the area where they are elected, and not in DC. That might do some good.
On #Aristotle's Ethicas: Democrats, Liberals, etc
The Necessity of this equality of ratios is shown by the common phrase "according to rate," for all agree that the just in distributions ought to be according to some rate: but what that rate is to be, all do not agree; the democrats are for freedom, the oligarchs for wealth, other for nobleness of birth, and the aristocratic party for virtue.
It's amazing what time has changed. Aristocrats have grown selfish, the democrats no longer hold to freedom or self determination, all the parties want to hold on to power by enslaving the people they represent.
If you stop to think about it, when the government pays someone not to work, they are enslaving that person for their vote. If that person doesn't vote for them, they don't get paid.
It's been said that when the people who live off of the government can vote, they will always vote to rob the treasury. Honestly, when was the last time that you heard a welfare recipient say, "I don't need a raise," and when was the last time you heard a democrat say, "We don't need to raise taxes," or, "Since we are in a recession, I don't need a raise in my salary."
It's only when a man stands on his own two feet and works hard for his money, that he realizes that the government take more than it needs to take, and for stupid reasons.
It's amazing what time has changed. Aristocrats have grown selfish, the democrats no longer hold to freedom or self determination, all the parties want to hold on to power by enslaving the people they represent.
If you stop to think about it, when the government pays someone not to work, they are enslaving that person for their vote. If that person doesn't vote for them, they don't get paid.
It's been said that when the people who live off of the government can vote, they will always vote to rob the treasury. Honestly, when was the last time that you heard a welfare recipient say, "I don't need a raise," and when was the last time you heard a democrat say, "We don't need to raise taxes," or, "Since we are in a recession, I don't need a raise in my salary."
It's only when a man stands on his own two feet and works hard for his money, that he realizes that the government take more than it needs to take, and for stupid reasons.
Sunday, May 15, 2011
#Aristotle's Ethicas: Liberalism
Yet, he will not give to improper people, nor at wrong times, and so on: because he would not then be acting in accordance with Liberality, and if he spent upon such objects, would have nothing to spend on those on which he ought: for, as I have said before, he is Liberal who spends in proportion to his means, and on proper objects, while he does so in excess is prodigal (This is the reason why we never call despots prodigal, because it does not seem to be easy for them by their gifts and expenditure to go beyond their immense possessions).
To sum up then. Since liberality is a mean state in respect of the giving and receiving of wealth, the liberal man will give and spend on proper objects, and in proper proportion, in great things and in small alike, and all this with pleasure to himself; also he will receive from right sources, and in right proportion: because, as the virtue is a mean state in both respect of both, he will do both as he ought, and, in fact, upon proper giving follows the correspondent receiving, while that which is not such is contrary to it.
It's a bit long winded, but my take is that Aristotle considered such men, being liberals, as those who should be wise enough, and noble enough, to take only what they need from good sources, and give to other people as they need.
Unfortunately, this has been turned 180 degrees, and the liberal has become a person who wants to steal from other people, from the fruits of their labor, in order to give to people who don't contribute.
Personally, I feel that since our governments, both state and federal, wish to spend beyond their means, Aristotle would considered these governments tyrants.
To sum up then. Since liberality is a mean state in respect of the giving and receiving of wealth, the liberal man will give and spend on proper objects, and in proper proportion, in great things and in small alike, and all this with pleasure to himself; also he will receive from right sources, and in right proportion: because, as the virtue is a mean state in both respect of both, he will do both as he ought, and, in fact, upon proper giving follows the correspondent receiving, while that which is not such is contrary to it.
It's a bit long winded, but my take is that Aristotle considered such men, being liberals, as those who should be wise enough, and noble enough, to take only what they need from good sources, and give to other people as they need.
Unfortunately, this has been turned 180 degrees, and the liberal has become a person who wants to steal from other people, from the fruits of their labor, in order to give to people who don't contribute.
Personally, I feel that since our governments, both state and federal, wish to spend beyond their means, Aristotle would considered these governments tyrants.
Saturday, May 14, 2011
Musings on #Aristotle's Ethicas.
Now, liberality is a term of relation to a man's means, for the liberal-ness depends not on the amount of what is given but on the moral state of the giver which gives in proportion to his means. There is then no reason why he should not be the more liberal man who gives the less amount, if the has less to give out of.
Again, they are thought to be more liberal who have inherited, no acquired for themselves, their means; because in the first place, they have never experienced want, and next, all people love most their own works, just as parents do and poets.
It is not easy for the Liberal man to be rich, since he is neither apt to receive nor to keep, but to lavish, and values not wealth for its own sake but with a view of giving it away. Hence it is commonly charged upon fortune that they who most deserve to be rich are least so.
Let me preface this by saying that I started reading Aristotle's Ethicas a month ago, and I've found it very interesting. Aristotle was a philosopher that believed that before a man could serve his country, he had to know how to interact with other people, and interact the right way.
I know that everyone will get something different from the passages, but what I got out of this was:
For some reason, the Definition of Liberal has changed since Aristotle's time. Now a liberal wants to redistribute wealth, even going so far as to steal it from other people, rather than give from his own wallet. If he can't bully people into giving freely, he'll steal it by using the government to do it.
Again, they are thought to be more liberal who have inherited, no acquired for themselves, their means; because in the first place, they have never experienced want, and next, all people love most their own works, just as parents do and poets.
It is not easy for the Liberal man to be rich, since he is neither apt to receive nor to keep, but to lavish, and values not wealth for its own sake but with a view of giving it away. Hence it is commonly charged upon fortune that they who most deserve to be rich are least so.
Let me preface this by saying that I started reading Aristotle's Ethicas a month ago, and I've found it very interesting. Aristotle was a philosopher that believed that before a man could serve his country, he had to know how to interact with other people, and interact the right way.
I know that everyone will get something different from the passages, but what I got out of this was:
For some reason, the Definition of Liberal has changed since Aristotle's time. Now a liberal wants to redistribute wealth, even going so far as to steal it from other people, rather than give from his own wallet. If he can't bully people into giving freely, he'll steal it by using the government to do it.
Thursday, May 12, 2011
Immigration Reforms...yeah right.
Earlier this week, President Obama was in El Paso, Texas, where he was stumping for re-election, and trying to illegal immigration as his campaign speech.
From what I heard, he kept saying that the immigration system needs to be reformed, and that we should allow more immigrants in our country, despite the fact that most illegal immigrants work for cash and don't pay taxes. Not to mention that they are a drag on the system by getting on welfare, and medicare and medicade and just plain don't care.
Once again, President Obama has proven himself not to be a part of reality. He thinks that bringing in more new people, that they'll work honestly, and will pay taxes. This isn't true, it never has been, never will be. If it were, then they wouldn't run anytime a cop came around or someone screamed INS.
Between you, me, and the rest of the country. At this time in history, we don't illegal immigrants coming in and trying to take jobs, while citizens are out of work. But that's just me talking.
From what I heard, he kept saying that the immigration system needs to be reformed, and that we should allow more immigrants in our country, despite the fact that most illegal immigrants work for cash and don't pay taxes. Not to mention that they are a drag on the system by getting on welfare, and medicare and medicade and just plain don't care.
Once again, President Obama has proven himself not to be a part of reality. He thinks that bringing in more new people, that they'll work honestly, and will pay taxes. This isn't true, it never has been, never will be. If it were, then they wouldn't run anytime a cop came around or someone screamed INS.
Between you, me, and the rest of the country. At this time in history, we don't illegal immigrants coming in and trying to take jobs, while citizens are out of work. But that's just me talking.
Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Maybe the sysem needs to be reformed
There comes a time in each person's life, when they wake up and realize that a strong federal and state government, along with it's supporting/leaching agencies, are sapping individual freedoms and destroying families.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of a system that looks out for children, but when that system starts abusing it's power, then that system needs to be reformed.
An agency which purports to think about children and their wellbeing, but doesn't actually talk to the children, and show them some comfort, needs to be rethought, reimagined, and given some humanity. I think that people that work for said agency should be parents, and should have at least have raised one child. I would think that having raised a child would make it easier to think like a parent, and a parent could easily spot things which would stand out from the ordinary, take for instance, druggie parents that feed their kids only junk food, or leave needles laying around, or kids that are always wearing long pants and shirts, to hide bruises.
Maybe said system should be based out of the church, and not the state, because when you don't think like christ, then you don't really see evil anywhere, and everything becomes subjective. Maybe I'm rambling, but then maybe I have a right to, either read this, or not, I don't care.
Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of a system that looks out for children, but when that system starts abusing it's power, then that system needs to be reformed.
An agency which purports to think about children and their wellbeing, but doesn't actually talk to the children, and show them some comfort, needs to be rethought, reimagined, and given some humanity. I think that people that work for said agency should be parents, and should have at least have raised one child. I would think that having raised a child would make it easier to think like a parent, and a parent could easily spot things which would stand out from the ordinary, take for instance, druggie parents that feed their kids only junk food, or leave needles laying around, or kids that are always wearing long pants and shirts, to hide bruises.
Maybe said system should be based out of the church, and not the state, because when you don't think like christ, then you don't really see evil anywhere, and everything becomes subjective. Maybe I'm rambling, but then maybe I have a right to, either read this, or not, I don't care.
Monday, May 09, 2011
The Mississippi River is rising again, Is this a surprise?
It's late spring, early summer, and as Gomer Pyle used to say, "Surprise, surprise," the Mississippi is rising again. Is this really a surprise? It seems like every year about this time, Tennessee and Mississippi get flooded. And as usual, the news crews rush down there, bemoaning the fact that people are displaced and their homes are flooded.
Don't get me wrong, I do feel sorry for people who are displaced, but come on, when will people realize that living near a big fast moving river has dangers, and that they should move back away from the water? I'm sure that FEMA will declare it a disaster area, and federal funds will pour in.
Contrast this to the wildfires in Texas, which were a genuine disaster that couldn't be prevented. FEMA and the White House have already said that Texas is SOL (Shit out of luck,) and there won't be Federal funds for those who lost homes to something nobody could possibly control, much less predict.
It just goes to show that Obama is a tyrant and won't lift a finger to help people who didn't vote for him, or might be TEA Party Members, or even libertarians. You'll have to forgive me if I'm confused, but isn't a President supposed to work for everybody, not just those who voted for him? Should he represent all American's?
Is it any wonder that half the country wants him gone, hopefully back to Kenya, where he has a passport.
Because god knows, he doesn't use an American Passport when he travels.
Don't get me wrong, I do feel sorry for people who are displaced, but come on, when will people realize that living near a big fast moving river has dangers, and that they should move back away from the water? I'm sure that FEMA will declare it a disaster area, and federal funds will pour in.
Contrast this to the wildfires in Texas, which were a genuine disaster that couldn't be prevented. FEMA and the White House have already said that Texas is SOL (Shit out of luck,) and there won't be Federal funds for those who lost homes to something nobody could possibly control, much less predict.
It just goes to show that Obama is a tyrant and won't lift a finger to help people who didn't vote for him, or might be TEA Party Members, or even libertarians. You'll have to forgive me if I'm confused, but isn't a President supposed to work for everybody, not just those who voted for him? Should he represent all American's?
Is it any wonder that half the country wants him gone, hopefully back to Kenya, where he has a passport.
Because god knows, he doesn't use an American Passport when he travels.
Thursday, May 05, 2011
Obama's way to kill the economy, and steal yet more money from our pockets
The draft of the transportation proposal, which reportedly has been circulated within the Department of Transportation and the Office of Management and Budget, would create a $300 million office within the Federal Highway Administration to be called the “Surface Transportation Revenue Alternatives Office.”
If anything shows how out of touch this administration is, it is this. Why would anyone who's trying to find a way to stay within budget, create a 300 million dollar office?
Common sense would say that this is a bad idea and that any one who wants to be re-elected, should run screaming as far away from this, as possible. But, our favorite teleprompter in chief, who by the way, doesn't have any kind of degree in economics, or even in common sense, would rather move our country even closer to Orwell's Big Brother world.
I will tell you this, I will not allow anyone to put anything on my car that broadcasts my location or travel plans to anyone, period. This would be a violation of my right to privacy, and another stupid tax would go even further in breaking my bottom line.
Listen up and listen good, Big Brother Obama, We don't want this change you want to bring, and we don't see any hope at all for this country with you in charge. Maybe you should just write your memiors and go join Carter in retirement.
If anything shows how out of touch this administration is, it is this. Why would anyone who's trying to find a way to stay within budget, create a 300 million dollar office?
Common sense would say that this is a bad idea and that any one who wants to be re-elected, should run screaming as far away from this, as possible. But, our favorite teleprompter in chief, who by the way, doesn't have any kind of degree in economics, or even in common sense, would rather move our country even closer to Orwell's Big Brother world.
I will tell you this, I will not allow anyone to put anything on my car that broadcasts my location or travel plans to anyone, period. This would be a violation of my right to privacy, and another stupid tax would go even further in breaking my bottom line.
Listen up and listen good, Big Brother Obama, We don't want this change you want to bring, and we don't see any hope at all for this country with you in charge. Maybe you should just write your memiors and go join Carter in retirement.
Tuesday, May 03, 2011
Texas Railroad Commision changes name and wants secret meetings
In recent news from Austin, The Texas legislators voted to change the name of the Commission to the Texas Oil and Gas Commission. And in an amendment, they also voted to have secret meetings when it comes to rate increases and other controversial discussions.
In my humble opinion, the name change is needed, but the secrecy is not. The taxpayers should always be allowed to be present when the Oil and gas commission discusses the raising of tax rates. This is because it's ultimately the consumer that pays for those increases, and we should always have the ability to sit in on such discussions.
The fact that the commission wants to meet in secrecy, only sounds to me like they want to raise rates and don't want us to know about it, until it's done with.
This is not government by the people, for the people, of the people, it's government by state, for the state, of the state, and it's illegal, as per the Texas constitution.
I am sick and tired of the State and Federal Government thinking that they can disregard the will of the people who voted them into office. This is a cancer that needs to be cut out.
In my humble opinion, the name change is needed, but the secrecy is not. The taxpayers should always be allowed to be present when the Oil and gas commission discusses the raising of tax rates. This is because it's ultimately the consumer that pays for those increases, and we should always have the ability to sit in on such discussions.
The fact that the commission wants to meet in secrecy, only sounds to me like they want to raise rates and don't want us to know about it, until it's done with.
This is not government by the people, for the people, of the people, it's government by state, for the state, of the state, and it's illegal, as per the Texas constitution.
I am sick and tired of the State and Federal Government thinking that they can disregard the will of the people who voted them into office. This is a cancer that needs to be cut out.
Monday, May 02, 2011
Osama Bin Laden dead. (Or is he?)
My wife woke me up at 12 am, asking, "Are you awake enough to hear the radio?" Between my mumbling, she cryptically said, "Because if it's true, Obama just got re-elected." Needless to say, I groggily came around, wondering if I'd missed time and it was 2012 already. Instead, I heard that US Forces in Pakistan had just Killed Osama Bin Laden.
My first thought was, "Damned, now he won't get to stand trial or spend time in G'Tmo." Then I kind of thought about it, and maybe it's for the best. I know that the families of 9/11 won't be happy that they didn't get to stone him, but justice was served. Then later, somewhere around 2am, I heard that the World's most wanted man was given a full military funeral at sea, and I was like, "What the hell? Since when do we honor terrorists so?" When they mentioned it was in accordance with Muslim law, I couldn't believe it.
Bin Laden had orchestrated the death of 3000 people, sent us into two stupid wars, got our brave soldiers killed, and he gets a full military funeral at sea?
If you are thinking that Obama might get re-elected. Don't fret, it's a year and 5 months until the next election, and the way Obama is going, most of us will forget that Bin Laden is dead by then, and we'll be backto concentrating on the spiraling debt, the massive entitlements, and other things, and Bin Laden will still be sitting at the bottom of the ocean, being chewed on by sand crabs.
It's sad, but it seems like some people just won't listen, because the easiest way to win this war, and yes it's a war against Islam, is to destroy mecca, Medina, and let the Israeli's blow the hell out of the al-asqa mosque that stands on the site of Solomon's temple.
I find it just a bit odd, but so far, Obama has gotten us into two more wars, one in Libya, and maybe one in Pakistan by invading countries that haven't touched us or attacked us. So much for the idiot in chief's promise to bring troops home.
By the way, I have a message for the US Forces that killed Bin Laden. "Way to go, guys, YOU ROCK!!!"
My first thought was, "Damned, now he won't get to stand trial or spend time in G'Tmo." Then I kind of thought about it, and maybe it's for the best. I know that the families of 9/11 won't be happy that they didn't get to stone him, but justice was served. Then later, somewhere around 2am, I heard that the World's most wanted man was given a full military funeral at sea, and I was like, "What the hell? Since when do we honor terrorists so?" When they mentioned it was in accordance with Muslim law, I couldn't believe it.
Bin Laden had orchestrated the death of 3000 people, sent us into two stupid wars, got our brave soldiers killed, and he gets a full military funeral at sea?
If you are thinking that Obama might get re-elected. Don't fret, it's a year and 5 months until the next election, and the way Obama is going, most of us will forget that Bin Laden is dead by then, and we'll be backto concentrating on the spiraling debt, the massive entitlements, and other things, and Bin Laden will still be sitting at the bottom of the ocean, being chewed on by sand crabs.
It's sad, but it seems like some people just won't listen, because the easiest way to win this war, and yes it's a war against Islam, is to destroy mecca, Medina, and let the Israeli's blow the hell out of the al-asqa mosque that stands on the site of Solomon's temple.
I find it just a bit odd, but so far, Obama has gotten us into two more wars, one in Libya, and maybe one in Pakistan by invading countries that haven't touched us or attacked us. So much for the idiot in chief's promise to bring troops home.
By the way, I have a message for the US Forces that killed Bin Laden. "Way to go, guys, YOU ROCK!!!"
Climate Change: Facts
Unless you live in a place where the temperature stays 72 degrees year around, it rains at 3:30 pm every day, like clockwork, and it's always a nice 60 degrees at night, and the grass is always green, no matter what the season, your climate is always changing.
Take for instance where I live. Friday it was 85 degrees, the sand was blowing. No, I don't live in the desert, I live in west Texas and where I work, there is sand. Saturday it was 65 degrees and there were hints of rain. Right now, it's 44 degrees outside and the high is estimated to be 61 degrees and the low might be 40 degrees. And to top it off, it's supposed to be May outside, though it feels more like February.
I hate to tell you people, but we live in a closed, yet dynamic system, and the climate is always changing. Get used to it. The important thing is not to let the Global Destruction fanatics scare you. Honestly, climate is gonna change, it's just a part of life. Embrace it, let it invigorate you, and simply enjoy it. If it's not to your liking, hang around because it will change, it's just a fact of life.
Take for instance where I live. Friday it was 85 degrees, the sand was blowing. No, I don't live in the desert, I live in west Texas and where I work, there is sand. Saturday it was 65 degrees and there were hints of rain. Right now, it's 44 degrees outside and the high is estimated to be 61 degrees and the low might be 40 degrees. And to top it off, it's supposed to be May outside, though it feels more like February.
I hate to tell you people, but we live in a closed, yet dynamic system, and the climate is always changing. Get used to it. The important thing is not to let the Global Destruction fanatics scare you. Honestly, climate is gonna change, it's just a part of life. Embrace it, let it invigorate you, and simply enjoy it. If it's not to your liking, hang around because it will change, it's just a fact of life.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)