Recommended Posts

Mike posted this in the Tucker thread and I told him I would migrate it here. The easiest way is simply leave it where it's at and quote it. Thus did I, I did:

1 hour ago, Mikee said:

Scott Adams:  The Time That Reality Forked Right in Front of You

Unfortunately the cognitive dissonant democrats have a lot of power and are planning to shove a huge amount of dissonance down the throats of anyone who doesn't agree with their view of reality.  Sorry to be a fear monger but I really don't like what's going on.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 14.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Michael Stuart Kelly

    4548

  • Peter

    1419

  • Jon Letendre

    1316

  • Brant Gaede

    881

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's what it says at the top of the page.  Your point?  It's not like this thread has devolved into a medley of cat videos.  Yet.  

It is intriguing.  I've been fairly obsessed for about a year with thinking about details.  I find microbiology fascinating. I wouldn't be wise, however, to talk about details.  The schemers are

That is astonishing. Thanks Jon. Behaviors that can cause a kid, later in life to be screwed up enough to become addicts or to kill themselves, needs a remedy and if the answer is chemical or physical

Posted Images

10 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

Let's back up to before Snowden.

I recall people back then saying this exact same thing about a surveillance state.

(I also recall accusations of tin foil hat--with great merriment. I don't hear those accusations or detect the merriment re the surveillance state anymore. What happened? :) )

I think it's safer (for accuracy) to qualify your statement with "according to what is publicly known."

Have you researched EMPs?   I have

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:
12 minutes ago, Jules Troy said:

Well...nukes are a pretty darned good source of EMP...

Then there's that.

:) 

Michael

I'd be more worried about a nuke than an EMP..

But then I'm not worried about that, either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Have you researched EMPs?   I have

Korben,

I don't doubt you have. btw - Are you aware of the bill Congress just passed about it?

I have researched this a little. One of the reasons I said "bomb" is that I was thinking of submarine with nuke. That's about the extent I know of using it as a realistic threat. I know very little about other forms of delivering the pulse.

I still think my qualification is a good idea. That comes from reading and interacting with too many people a while back who studied the matter and determined there was no credible threat of a surveillance state.

:) 

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Korben,

I don't doubt you have. btw - Are you aware of the bill Congress just passed about it?

I have researched this a little. One of the reasons I said "bomb" is that I was thinking of submarine with nuke. That's about the extent I know of using it as a realistic threat. I know very little about other forms of delivering the pulse.

I still think my qualification is a good idea. That comes from reading and interacting with too many people a while back who studied the matter and determined there was no credible threat of a surveillance state.

:) 

Michael

I wasn't aware of the bill Congress passed, but it sounds like a good idea to get started thinking about defense.

I researched it a few years ago and EMPs are unwieldy to be used as a weapon, problem is the power source.  I wasn't considering a sub with a nuke earlier.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

the economy is going to boom under his economic policies, and from the tenor and tone of your posts, I imagine none of this will please you.

Your imagination erred again, like it often does.

A mere 4 days ago you wrote "an economic boom in America the likes of which haven't been seen before." Now it's a mere boom. Is your hope for change deflating? :) At least you tromped on mine. :P What a letdown.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, merjet said:

A mere 4 days ago you wrote "an economic boom in America the likes of which haven't been seen before." Now it's a mere boom. Is your hope for change deflating? :) At least you tromped on mine. :P What a letdown.

Merlin,

LOL...

That's one hell of an inference and I can't get my mind around what virus causes it.

:)

Of course we will see an economic boom in America the likes of which haven't been seen before. Do I have to say the entire phrase every time I say boom?

How's this?

Image result for boom

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Of course we will see an economic boom in America the likes of which haven't been seen before. Do I have to say the entire phrase every time I say boom?

How's this?

Heh. You still haven't given a real GDP growth number.

How's this? Cluck, cluck. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, merjet said:

You still haven't given a real GDP growth number.

Merlin,

That's because GDP numbers don't mean much to me.

Once I saw the government saying--over and over--employment rate was increasing, but seeing the number of actual people out of work growing, I lost interest in macro-economic numbers. The people who take these things seriously are not serious about these things reflecting reality.

I prefer to see more and more people owning more and more stuff and producing more and more stuff and doing more and more stuff. Just watch that happen under Trump and slap any old number you want on it. 

I believe math these days is severed from that. 

How's that?

Probably not good from your view--since a head in the sand can't see much, anyway...

:)

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, merjet said:

Haven't given a real GDP growth number

I'll predict 5% real growth in calendar 17, net of 3% inflation, despite rising interest rates, but you have to accept government spending as a component of GDP (it's conventional macroeconomic math). Good news is 4% real growth of private sector, double digit growth of investment in new U.S. business ventures and smaller trade deficit. Global trade partners will take it on the chin, but we won't be importing as much as previously, and the U.S. will be an investment magnet on declining opportunities elsewhere. Seems likely that the Bakken will get another bailout (HY debt refi) and will return to aggressive completion and production. I expect that the Dakota Access pipeline will be completed, National Guard used if necessary.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

I'll predict 5% real growth in calendar 17, net of 3% inflation, despite rising interest rates, but you have to accept government spending as a component of GDP (it's conventional macroeconomic math). Good news is 4% real growth of private sector, double digit growth of investment in new U.S. business ventures and smaller trade deficit. Global trade partners will take it on the chin, but we won't be importing as much as previously, and the U.S. will be an investment magnet on declining opportunities elsewhere. Seems likely that the Bakken will get another bailout (HY debt refi) and will return to aggressive completion and production. I expect that the Dakota Access pipeline will be completed, National Guard used if necessary.

From your keyboard to God's  monitor.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like Trump might have 2 fans of AR on his cabinet:

"Like Trump’s nominee for labor secretary, fast-food CEO Andy Puzder, Tillerson is reportedly a fan of libertarian writer Ayn Rand. He “once listed his favorite book as Atlas Shrugged,”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-things-know-rex-tillerson-224100479.html

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The people who take these things seriously are not serious about these things reflecting reality. 

....................

Probably not good from your view--since a head in the sand can't see much, anyway...

I see you can't resist the snarky ad hominem.

Do you mean like Donald Trump?

http://www.businessinsider.com/donald-trump-economic-growth-as-president-2016-8

And his pick for Treasury Secretary?

http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2016/11/30/steven-mnuchin-says-u-s-growth-can-be-3-to-4-heres-why-thats-hard/

And his pick for Commerce Secretary?

https://www.cato.org/blog/economics-trade-wilbur-ross-mistaken

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, wolfdevoon said:

I'll predict 5% real growth in calendar 17, net of 3% inflation, despite rising interest rates, but you have to accept government spending as a component of GDP (it's conventional macroeconomic math). Good news is 4% real growth of private sector, double digit growth of investment in new U.S. business ventures and smaller trade deficit. Global trade partners will take it on the chin, but we won't be importing as much as previously, and the U.S. will be an investment magnet on declining opportunities elsewhere. Seems likely that the Bakken will get another bailout (HY debt refi) and will return to aggressive completion and production. I expect that the Dakota Access pipeline will be completed, National Guard used if necessary.

Wolf,

I'd give that a minimum.

I think the economy is going to do even better than that and here's the reason: informatics.

The intended consequences of taking the boot off the throat of producers is that they will produce and sell a lot more.

The unintended consequences is the multiplier effect that informatics has on trade and production among free people.

There are many new millionaires being made every day from online sales and marketing within the stagnant economy we have right now. And that's with regulations suffocating a lot of what can be produced and sold and how. 

With Trump's removal of restrictions and encouragement of market activity, I believe the lack of geographical constraints that informatics results in will give a logarithmic effect to the market, not just an additive one.

The only thing that could gum this up is if Trump allows banks to do monopoly-like stuff and call it free-market. We know big banks like money and have no morals, so if they get a chance to do monkey-business with legal loopholes in a situation like that, we might get another Dot-com bubble, housing derivatives crises, etc. But I don't think Trump and the team he is assembling is going to allow that to happen. I think (I hope) he is going to audit the Fed.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Wolf,

I'd give that a minimum.

I think the economy is going to do even better than that and here's the reason: informatics.

The intended consequences of taking the boot off the throat of producers is that they will produce and sell a lot more.

The unintended consequences is the multiplier effect that informatics has on trade and production among free people.

There are many new millionaires being made every day from online sales and marketing within the stagnant economy we have right now. And that's with regulations suffocating a lot of what can be produced and sold and how. 

With Trump's removal of restrictions and encouragement of market activity, I believe the lack of geographical constraints that informatics results in will give a logarithmic effect to the market, not just an additive one.

The only thing that could gum this up is if Trump allows banks to do monopoly-like stuff and call it free-market. We know big banks like money and have no morals, so if they get a chance to do monkey-business with legal loopholes in a situation like that, we might get another Dot-com bubble, housing derivatives crises, etc. But I don't think Trump and the team he is assembling is going to allow that to happen. I think (I hope) he is going to audit the Fed.

Michael

All this sounds like the bird chirping sunny optimism heard during the RWR  administration.  Time will tell....

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

All this sounds like the bird chirping sunny optimism heard during the RWR  administration.

Bob,

LOL...

I heard this about Trump getting elected.

:) 

Even though I don't practice Internet marketing, I have studied it a lot.

What I'm saying is a bit more than the sunny optimism of the Reagan years. I've seen it operate over and over and over.

I suppose I am going to have to start using this knowledge for my own gain before long. I've hesitated because of the sleaze factor in online sales. I couldn't figure out what to do about that. (I think I've figured it out and it involves storytelling--that is telling one kind of story that works instead of another, with emphasis on what I am comfortable with, and that little nagging condition, "that works." Basically, this means modeling the patterns of the stories that induce me, Michael, to buy over and over. It's more complicated than that, but that's the essence. Anyway, this is beside the point.)

If you look into Internet marketing, you will be surprised at the market vibrancy of the Internet as a commercial platform. 

For obvious examples, think Amazon for physical goods, Google and Facebook for advertising, etc. These have become some of the largest companies in the world in a short time. And that's within a regulated market.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, KorbenDallas said:

I'd be more worried about a nuke than an EMP..

But then I'm not worried about that, either.

It would take a big nuke to do serious EMP damage to this country. This is well beyond anything Iran or North Korea would be able to do for quite some time.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

It would take a big nuke to do serious EMP damage to this country. This is well beyond anything Iran or North Korea would be able to do for quite some time.

Brant,

From the stuff I have seen, three from strategically places submarines would do it for the entire country. And they wouldn't have to be super-duper-powerful nukes.

Michael

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Brant,

From the stuff I have seen, three from strategically places submarines would do it for the entire country. And they wouldn't have to be super-duper-powerful nukes.

Michael

I'll ask Durk Pearson how big his "large" is.

--Brant

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

The only thing that could gum this up is if Trump allows banks to do monopoly-like stuff and call it free-market.

It's not the only thing. There are tariffs and more.

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Backlighting said:

 

Looks like Trump might have 2 fans of AR on his cabinet:

"Like Trump’s nominee for labor secretary, fast-food CEO Andy Puzder, Tillerson is reportedly a fan of libertarian writer Ayn Rand. He “once listed his favorite book as Atlas Shrugged,”

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/10-things-know-rex-tillerson-224100479.html

1

Oh, yeah - at least two. Here's this morning's Federalist essay from Robert Tracinski: "Inside Donald Trump's Secret Ayn Rand Conspiracy." Don't you just love it? ;-)

http://thefederalist.com/2016/12/14/inside-donald-trumps-secret-ayn-rand-conspiracy/?utm_source=The+Federalist+List&utm_campaign=618f8a9b2e-RSS_The_Federalist_Daily_Updates_w_Transom&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_cfcb868ceb-618f8a9b2e-83770993

Link to post
Share on other sites

Meanwhile, here's a *real* conspiracy - or more accurately, a heavy-handed, club-footed, totally transparent tactic aimed at overturning the November election results. In other words, it's really just another desperate spasm in the very unorthodox wake for the 2016 Presidential hopes of the Democratic party.

The group of 40 Electoral College members demanding a briefing on Russian "interference" in the election includes 39 Democrats and the 1 "faithless" Republican elector who already said he will not vote for Trump. Which means 40 people who don't themselves want or need the briefing. They just want to force it onto the committed Trump electors in hopes of prying enough of them loose to deprive Trump of the 270 needed to win the Presidency outright.

This is sort of like the wretched idea of a law forcing women who want to end their pregnancies to watch a video about fetuses before being allowed to have an abortion. (Imagine Pro-Life pregnant women demanding that Pro-Choice pregnant women be forced to watch that video before exercising reproductive choice.) It's also sort of like Jill Stein trying to force a recount, when that recount was not going to change *her* results, but only (possibly) Trump's.

But this is just another dumb idea that's going nowhere. It truly is another in a string of last-ditch efforts to keep Trump from being inaugurated next month. You'd think that the Dem's would be elated that they have discovered yet another way to win the Presidency: have a life-long Democrat run for President as a Republican! ;-)   

But hey, I'm a reasonable person, and I really do want people to have access to all the information they want in order to make an informed choice. So, I would say that if those 40 whiny, belligerent electors want a briefing, sure, let them have one - but don't let them "demand" that the briefing be forced on the other electors who already know what they want to do. The Frantic Forty making the "demand" already know what *they* want to do, and the briefing is not going to change *their* minds. They just want to mess with the others. Screw that.

I don't know how this particular gambit will turn out, but we don't have to wait long to find out. The Frantic Forty and the Never Trumpers behind them have less than a week to get this paper mache airplane off the ground. I predict it flops as badly as Jill Stein's recount "demands." Then I think the only remaining tactic will be to try to "disrupt" the inauguration, as many stellar humanitarians such as Michael Moore have "demanded" that Trump haters do.

So, looking ahead to Inauguration Day, I think it would be cool for the Trump team to devise a huge fake event in the usual place in D.C., and secretly fly somewhere like Des Moines, Iowa and do the real Inauguration there, as sort of a thank-you to Iowa for flipping to Trump and helping him win the election. Then all the "disruptors" in D.C. could helplessly continue their big wail -a- thon and pound sand in ultimate frustration. Heh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now