Jump to content

NewfoundlandFreeFrog

Members
  • Content Count

    21,081
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    26

NewfoundlandFreeFrog last won the day on May 3

NewfoundlandFreeFrog had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

2,316 Excellent

About NewfoundlandFreeFrog

  • Birthday 06/23/1951

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • TCU Class Year or School affiliation
    1980

Recent Profile Visitors

3,243 profile views
  1. A little warmer,, perhaps, but I nearly always steam lobsters. There is more flavor that way than boiling. Was your lobster immersed or not?
  2. My recently-deceased MIL dated him in college. I've mentioned this before. I guess you don't store away everything I type???!!!
  3. Stay hard Mad magazine. Well mostly hard...apparently annual specials will still occur.
  4. I doubt few Fox watchers and/or Trump supporters even blinked. Even supposed "conservative" never-Trumpers have wimped out (much like some dems did on Iraq). They refuse to say anything. Or, worse, mouth supports (I'm looking at you L'il Marco). Doublethink: The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them… To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just as long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies—all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth. Or the realization that Winston comes to: His mind slid away into the labyrinthine world of doublethink. To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully-constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them; to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy; to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Or see Hoffer's now quite old but still relevant The True Believer.
  5. Um...I was agreeing with you. Hard to take, I guess. That said, specific programs get cancelled all the time. I still remember the Atlas silos around a base I lived on being cancelled...er, well, immediately after a years long upgrade at great expense on cost plus contracts, anyway. Have you ever seen a B-70 bomber? An RAH-66? A National Polar-orbiting Operational Environmental Satellite System? It is departments and larger organizations that rarely get cancelled.
  6. If the DoD were not a jobs program, defense contractors wouldn't be so careful to make sure to spread the jobs around to the maximum congressional districts they can.
  7. I simply note that you reserve your expressed wrath to the cases where the "wrong" people get "free stuff". When the right people--living or legal fictions--get it, it appears the situation is much less serious. Or so your lack of posts on those such nanny state, socialist abuses would appear to indicate. Re. the NFIP, here is Ted Cruz' highly conservative comment from his website on the "free stuff" provided by the govt: "Today's flood relief bill provides meaningful relief to the millions who faced dramatically high premiums that jeopardize their homes and their businesses. This bill is a substantial improvement over the previous Senate version in that it is far more fiscally responsible. The federal flood insurance program still needs further reforms to ensure its long-term solvency, but today's vote protects investment-backed expectations of Texans all along the Gulf Coast." It appears he wants to create a system where Gulf beachfront homeowners greatly reduce their risks saving them from being responsible for the actual debts their bad decisions incur. (I still remember when beachfront homes used to be more like shacks precisely because the owners expected to have to rebuild at their own expense from time to time.) The NFIP socializes the risks with taxpayer, nanny state monies but privatizes the benefits allowing a much different sort of beachfront living environment to occur. It would seem to me that in railing against socialist, nanny state abuses, all such abuses should be railed against. But I never see it here or anywhere much for that matter when the free stuff goes to the right people. It can be done. Here, for example, is an article railing against the billions of socialist, nanny state monies that have gone to "risk taking entrepreneurs responsible for the costs of their decisions" in the area of developing fracking technology: https://mises.org/library/government-roads-subsidies-and-costs-fracking
  8. Sounds a lot like corporate welfare to me. Or possibly the taxpayer subsidized flood insurance so beloved by "conservatives, like Ted Cruz which "protects investments". Isn't it interesting how the definitions of "free stuff" and "risk takers" change depending on who is losing and who is risking? The very notion of a corporation is a political/legal mechanism to protect investors from suffering the investors' full portion of losses that a corporation they own x% of might incur. Profits are individualized while losses are socialized. As God decreed.
  9. Curious for legal input here. How is Robert's: "Altogether, the evidence tells a story that does not match the Secretary’s explanation for his decision." not saying perjury occurred in front of the Supreme Court?
  10. I'm in really bad pain with my face swelled up to mumps size after my surgery. Trying not to take too many drugs. So maybe I missed. Sorry.
  11. I said the rate would be higher not that all gun violence would cease. That is simply a straw man. Same for your immigration example I might add (consider rates in the 19th century when there was little regulation)...rates would change with no or little regulation. NO law or regulation brings base rates of negative behavior to zero. Many lower base rates. We are not helpless no matter how much you pretend we are.
  12. No. I believe tha annual rates in Toronto would likely be higher than 2-3X under your assumptions. I believe that gun death rates can be reduced and that we are not helpless. The evidence is actually pretty clear on that point.
  13. I honestly think the rates would be significantly higher. Yes. Pretty demonstrably true in the data. See duq. If you define that as no difference well not everyone will agree. Any reduction in rates is s good thing. MADD etc. has reduced drunk driving rates. Not to zero but in about half. I guess they are getting no results one way or the other.
×
×
  • Create New...