Carborendum

I can't tell if you're joking. You know they figured that out right?

How's Schumer feeling about now?

https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-senate-abortion-protest-hostage https://nypost.com/2022/06/25/arizona-abortion-protest-police-release-tear-gas-lawmakers-held-hostage-in-senate-building/ https://www.foxnews.com/us/arizona-senate-abortion-protest-hostage https://foxmetronews.com/news/breaking-arizona-senate-evacuated-after-pro-choice-rioters-and-teachers-breach-security/ https://www.12news.com/article/news/politics/dozens-gather-at-arizonas-state-capitol-protesting-roe-v-wade-ruling/75-aa642eee-e41a-4cb0-858f-835e31ed2818 And a a Twitter Video https://twitter.com/brahmresnik/status/1540548828696150016?ref_src=twsrc^tfw|twcamp^tweetembed|twterm^1540548828696150016|twgr^|twcon^s1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.12news.com%2Farticle%2Fnews%2Fpolitics%2Fdozens-gather-at-arizonas-state-capitol-protesting-roe-v-wade-ruling%2F75-aa642eee-e41a-4cb0-858f-835e31ed2818 It was declared a "hostage situation" when state senators were not allowed to leave their chambers for fear of their lives. This really was a literal insurrection. It was not just a random mob people with similar interests. It was not a bunch of people protesting and letting their emotions get the better of them. It was organized with people wearing uniforms and carrying weapons drawn (not just concealed carriers keeping their self-protection close to their chest). Their intent was to destroy property, vandalize, intimidate (and likely kill) senators. The police response was proportional and reactionary. The main tactic wasn't to arrest large numbers of people. The tactic was to disperse and allow the senators to be free. Compare that to how they treated Jan 6th. NOTE: From CNN WP, etc. They headlined the fact that police used tear gas rather than the danger that was posed to the senators. https://edition.cnn.com/2022/06/24/us/supreme-court-roe-v-wade-protests/index.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/roe-protest-disrupts-last-hours-of-2022-arizona-legislature/2022/06/25/7dce1366-f47f-11ec-ac16-8fbf7194cd78_story.html They don't dare show the videos of just how bad these actors were.

I've never heard this song before. And, yes, the tune is very nice, but the lyrics... The only place that this combo thrives is in musicals. So, it seems fitting that Richard Harris (Camelot) would have been the original performer.

You would.

Actually, I noticed something else recently in various news sources across the political spectrum. Language is more honest. For decades, the language has be euphemistic: "Pro-choice/ Pro-life", "women's health", "reproductive health", "right to choose." Recently, everyone is being more honest. Pro-abortion!/Anti-abortion! Abortion rights! "Abort the baby". It's not just an embryo or fetus or mass of cells anymore. Actually a lot will still say that. But I've heard a lot more language lately where the left openly admits they want to "kill the baby." If you haven't heard it much, don't worry, you will hear more of it. It's the natural course throughout history. Once everyone is on board the bandwagon of honesty, we can really discuss the reality rather than ignore the real issue.

THANK YOU!!! This has been bugging me for years.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lji0Kdez_eo I remember when this commercial aired. But I had thought that the jingle they used was a modification of an existing song. I've since tried looking for the original song to no avail. Am I correct in assuming this was a pop song by a popular artist/act? Or was this original to the Friskies commercial? I could swear I remember hearing a song that started out with "No No. No no. No nonono. nono. no. no." on the radio. But I can't remember who it was. I even remember some commentator saying that it had set a world record for the use of the word "no" in a single song. Am I remembering wrong?

The biggest consideration is: Which is more likely? That one child will be a good influence on the other? Or that the other may be a bad influence on the one?

Neither can I.

What am I missing here? https://apnews.com/article/abortion-us-supreme-court-politics-health-new-jersey-bcecfda68434ebd9094ff489459f1183 According to the AP, abortion clinics are somehow "afraid" that they will be targets of terror attacks once the SCOTUS opinion is released. What kind of twisted logic gets them to the conclusion that they will be targets AFTER the decision is handed down? They even state that the leak has provoked increased violence from the pro-abortion people. Where have we seen an increase from pro-choice people? I haven't heard of ANY, much less an increase motivated by the leaked opinion. Why should abortion clinics "brace" for the decision?

A couple months ago I posted that I had decided to donate to Ammo Inc to supply ammunition to the Ukrainian army. They responded saying that they want to handle that by having donations go to the charity: CARE. I donated to them. I received a thank you note in the mail saying that they were grateful that I had donated to fight climate change. ??? I was very upset. Needless to say I stopped all communications. Today I just got a mailing from the March of Dimes asking for donations. I thought, "How about that! There's a charity I can get behind." Then I read what they were asking money for. They are chartered to support women and babies in need of medical care. That sure sounded ok. But there was something very odd about the wording and how they were saying some things and not saying others. They especially talked about how many women die in child birth in the US. When they say that they were able to reduce the number of babies born with birth defects. My alarm bells went off. I looked them up. Apparently, they are another charity that funds and encourages abortions. Is this old news? Do most people know that already? Dang! I've got to look into every donation I've made and see what they're really like underneath. I may just stop donating to any cause because everyone hides their real activities under the veneer of helping children. At least I'll be ok with tithing and fast offerings. Sheesh! Can I not donate to any other cause and feel like I'm helping some cause I actually support?

So, it looks like the forecast for Q2 of 2022 hasn't changed in about 60 days. The first quarter had a -1.5% GDP* growth rate. Second quarter is still forecast as +1.9% So, unless something big changes in the next couple of weeks, it looks like I will be wrong. No recession. But that sure isn't a growth rate that is making anyone happy. By the end of the year, they expect a year-over-year rate of 0.2% growth. (cue Ben Stein) Wow... I'm so happy we're not in an actual recession.** * The numbers shown are "Real" GDP (i.e. they include the effects of inflation). ** My theory is that we really are in a recession. But TPTB are fudging the numbers *just a tictch" so we can be so happy to not be in a recession.

Just recently, the Texas GOP Convention resulted in the demand to put a referendum up for a vote in the state for Texas Secession. No, this was not the first time. No, it never gained much steam in the past. No, it isn't really a gung-ho wide-spread Texan demand. I'd dare say that for the most part Texans don't care one way or the other. It's fun to talk about at parties. I'll make some more comments below about the law, the history, etc. But for now, I'd like to explore a more impactful question: If secession were possible, what then? What would the post secession (parts of) America look like? How would the monetary system work? Is there any state that could very quickly begin its own monetary system? North Dakota has its own state bank. It is essentially a baby version of the Federal Reserve. Crypto will be available through a state sanctioned financial system without the 17% transaction fee. Yeah, 17% SHEESH! What about the military? The military personnel by state of enlistment is about even. A slight slant towards the red states. But overall, about even. Equipment? Whoever maintains control of the actual equipment (including launch codes) will have the upper hand. But forgetting about the actual war for power, what would happen afterwards? Red states would be able to defend themselves. More guns. Blue States? Yeah, still a lot of people, but would they move out? Economy? Right now all the blue states are dying and sucking the federal government dry. The Red states are mostly faring well. Industry? Teh-heh. Red states doing much better. But that's not the only question. Energy would be a huge deal. But we need resources that are currently spread out between red and blue states. Actual petroleum to work with. Steel & concrete Copper Aluminum Plastics Electronics Major equipment manufacturers ... The list goes on It looks like custody over the kids might be the main reason to avoid a divorce. It would not look all that pleasant. Given that, I'd say that the only way we could reasonably desire separation is if things get so bad that a very nasty custody battle is more desirable than the state of things as they are. Now the how... I have done a lot of reading on the topic since so many media outlets are simply making fun of the idea as some outlandish wish of the ignorant far right kooks who have nothing better to do with their time. And to their point, the supposed legal basis for secession is weak at best. But the one sticking point is the one strongest argument that it is still up in the air. The one and only argument that really matters is that "The Civil War settled the issue once and for all." Doesn't that mean that another civil war can "settle the issue again... in the other direction?" I would think so. But is that likely? And could Texas (and some other states actually win such a war? Likely not. But I do see a possible future where secession is likely. That is -- how much political impetus is going to survive enough to keep the nation together? Neither side will really want to keep the other party around anymore. Democrats may talk the talk about the Constitution when it serves their ends. But don't hesitate to bow to the woke mob who believes the entire system is broken and was based on desires of slave owners to keep their own power. They'd have no problem getting rid of the Constitution. Republicans say they care about the Constitution. But the very existence of the secession movement (mostly by Republicans in various states) indicates they realize it may not be worth it anymore. If neither of the major parties really wants to be married anymore, wouldn't a divorce seem inevitable? During the actual Civil War, many Northerners were wondering why Lincoln even cared about keeping the South in the Union. "Let them go!" many activists cried out, "We don't need them!" Well, that didn't happen. But the sentiment was there. Is it stronger today? Lincoln felt the need to keep the nation together because he felt that to let the South go would mean that the great American Experiment was a failure. We know that it was not a failure. That fact is firmly established. So, I'd ask: What is the purpose of keeping the nation together today? If a civil war were to break out today we KNOW that many media outlets on both sides of the aisle would be saying "Let them go! We don't need them!" And at this point, is anyone in leadership practical enough to realized that, yes, we DO need them? Or are they even going to be megalomaniacal enough to want to keep them "just because I said so"?

Yes, the pride-prosperity cycle will be seen one more time. But it will be relatively short lived. We'll have one more chance to raise a righteous generation. Then we will fall.

9 years ago - Oregon: A man brings a bat and knife to rob a gunstore. https://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/26/us/gun-robber-armed-with-bat/index.html Today - Houston: A man brings a knife to a gun fight. Someone tried to rob a gunstore with a knife.

There's another part of the puzzle. While everyone has their biases, there is always the understanding that all sides need to be able to provide their side of the story, present their own evidence, call witnesses on their behalf... Those rotting away in solitary confinement are being denied all these things. And for some reason the Dems believe they have the moral high ground. If they do have it, why are they not allowing for opposing views, evidence, witnesses, and the presumption of innocence?

What I mean is that the old page format had the "edit" button around the bottom of the post. Now, it is hidden in that dot menu. So, by habit, a lot of people seem to be going to the quote button when they want to edit. So, it will eventually work out as people get used to the format. But in the meantime, we can expect a lot of mostly deleted posts.

Here is the proof that this was not an insurrection. The government suspended habeas corpus AGAINST ITS OWN CITIZENS and no one is able to stop it. They are imprisoned in solitary confinement without a chance for bail or counsel. When the government resorts to injustice to make their point, they've already proven that their point is not worthy of the justice system. When there is a conflict between parties who both cry out that the other side is the offender, one need only ask: "Who is using injustice as a weapon?"

When raised outside of religious conviction, there is nothing outside of oneself. Self is the ultimate source of reason and truth. Listening to this outer voice becomes a childish fantasy. And, yes, they will unconsciously reject it. Being raised with religious conviction, one is given the notion that they are not the center of the universe. By that one trait, one has a greater propensity towards humility. And humility is the beginning of learning truth. Which is better? To believe that one can come to the truth by one's own observations alone? Or by trusting in a higher power to open up the mysteries of the universe to you as you open up your heart to infinite possibilities?

The teacher or SS presidency or the bishopric reading the material doesn't change the fact that no one in the class has read the material. (Usu. the bishopric and SS presidencey don't attend the class.) "Encourage discussion"??? Discussion from whom? If the teacher is the only one who's read it, then how does he get the class to discuss something they haven't read? This ends up being the default. And that is unfortunate.

How does one encourage discussion about the scriptures when no one reads the material?

It may be a question of semantics. But I don't believe it is because we tell ourselves lies. I think it is that often times we don't know the difference between truth and lies.

Civically speaking, I believe we have the proper guidance on the matter: when a long train of abuses... Still, the principles will determine the results. If we truly are justified, then the Lord will be behind us. And the reverse would be the obvious corellary. So, if we really are willing to pledge our lives, our fortunes, and out sacred honor on the outcome, then rebellion/insurrection is on the table But that has to be backed up by the judgement of God to determine if it really is "OK when WE do it." And that is the real trick, isn't it?

This is a true statement. But look a little deeper. Why is this true?