Personally I've never liked that expression even though my own maternal grandmother was one person who used it, but never about anyone in our family. This photo could also be called "Plastic Surgery Disasters" but the Dead Kennedies have used that one already. Anyhow as Bob Sheefer or the guy from "Face the Nation" says, Rick Santorum has made enough contaversial statements in the past few days to more than fill a show with. First of all I'm kind of puzzled by this nickname of "Frothy". This Foster of Foster's Freeze, is a Cortessian, cosmically. I've known that for a long time. This is the group that brought us Dwanne Eddy and "Apache" and is a leader in novelty records such as "I'm A Grub Worm" and "Dinner With Drac". My local Romulan friends are on very good terms with them. As to the issues, as a Christian I think I know where Rick Santorum is "coming from" on a lot of these issues and what his concerns really are. He's against amneo sentesus. This is a "gateway activity" that often is a first step tword aborting the fetus and I understand that. The parents want to screen for diseases. It's a pity our genetic surgery isn't better so that in the future we could just "fix" these defective genes and preserve the life of the fetus. Santorum wants to take us back to the "little house on the prairie" one room school house. He's against state education. My position is that the Federal Government should NOT be micro-managing schools but respect our "Federalist" relation with the "several states" and not get involved in education in areas such as school lunch programs. My position on unfunded mandates is that I'm against them. I'm also against free funding with no money or "discretionary state spending". I'd also be cautious on even "funded mandates" though this is the only one of the three I would consider. Here it would be a question of "Should the Federal Government undertake some new layer of involvement in state governments". My view on polution, noise pollution, firearms, fire works, and even immigration as well as drugs is that these are "states rights" issues. In each of these areas, and throw in abortion regulations or the lack of them, states are free to enact whatever regulations they wish, and in each lower level of government, is free to add their own local regulations - or not. To me that makes the whole thing much simpler. As to the idea of President Obama having "another religion" or being like Hitler or whatever the rest of it is, this is silly. I do not know Santorum's views on pollution. An important aspect of my own view is that California is free to enact stricter regulations on pollution than the Federal government is they wish. I am against Cap & trade carbon tax laws at the present time, and at any foreseable time in the future. I am not, however a member of the oil lobby, and believes the President can and should keep dirty Canadian oil out of this country. Once he is reelected, can junk this whole Canada to Texas oil pipeline idea for good.
Thom Hartman is an Idiot on this whole electoral college problem. We in California are getting sick and tired of never having a say in either the Primary or General election on who the next President of the United States will be. This is sheer idiocy. Cows don't vote - People do. Neither California nor Texas nor New York should suffer the indignity of being routinely ignored in each and every electoral campaign. It's silly to confine our Presidential Campaigns to a hand full of states, and most likely they are Pennsylvania, Ohio, Missouri, Iowa, Virginia, and North Caroline and Florida if they're lucky. In this scenario everything west of the Missouri River gets ignored, including the Rockies and the entire Northwest and the entire Northeast. This will not say a President CANNOT campaign in Wyoming, with only three electoral votes, but it should be the candidate's choice and not by necessity. So my solution is simple. Get rid of the State Unit rule. Make every electoral district autonomous- - at least 435 of them. The senate districts can still have that power to have a little balance. Wyoming in my system will still have three votes, and not one. But if you want to win in California you'll have to campaign here because most votes will have to be won district by district. These "battleground" states will no longer be all that relivent.
Two assholes of Saturday February 18th getting a co "Asshole of the Day" award are Pete Richards and Bill Gunderson. Pete has never been that fair when it comes to making agreements. He will have highly selective memory and seemingly remember things that never occurred and forget realities that actually exist. He will put words in other people's mouths and twist words around 180 degrees on them. He will say things so insulting to people's intelligence that even a Forest Gump would be able to see through them. This all has to do with my vinyl record storage. The only person who has been at all reasonable on this subject is my mother. I think there is a way any computer with a sound input jack, which I have used and recently, too, would be able to digitize audio signals. The idea of throwing hundreds of dollars in investment out the window is absurd. I did that with copies of my Prophecy Book when I moved in here but never again. Pete Richards has this way of spring things on you and creating an "instant crisis". You "Days" fans know what I am talking about. One character, Brady Black, has had two atom bombs dropped on him in the past week and I feel for him. Clearly he was "set up" both times. That's just "Cold", if you know what I mean. At least I didn't punch anybody out, perhaps because it was a phone conversation and not in person. But believe me I applauded when he did it. People need to learn to value people. My whole idea of just what friendship and "human relations' are is entirely different from Pete Richards, as that story from five months ago illustrates.
It took me a long time to find the following text but I did it. Desktop is no longer on my computer, and you can't get it any more, either. Word has ended file search, too. I can't find DOS prompt in program. I dug it out of my archives but guess what? You can't navigate with directories with more than one Word in the title. Doesn't that just suck? My old computer used to be able to do that. Fortunately My Computer still has sort by date. They'll be eliminating That next and think they are doing us a big favor like word in their perverse logic. Here is the text: Hi, I'm The Walrus and I'm a tough egg to try and figure out. I'm running for President. I'm grade A. I used to like to excel in everything I did but now running for President my goal is just getting by. I figure the job is so inconsequential that I'll have plenty of time to do things I really like, like playing racquet ball with Will Horton. Some have accused me of being a flake. But unlike my brother I was smart enough to only turn Born Again Christian when it was fashionable. I used to be into prophecy but I got bored with that when others did. I used to look down on anyone who was at all political. But now I'm a tea bagger and I allow people who are even sleazier than me to to the thinking for me. I'm like Mitt Romney because now both of us are doing what we are LEAST tallented at. In Romney's case that obviously is business finance. I used to be for Gingrich, but naturally when the media changed their mind, so did I. Actually the nation's finances would be a whole lot safer if my brother were running the country, but don't dare tell him that. I want him to believe that I don't trust him. I've never been able to find a steady church to worship at that comes up to my high religious standards. Everybody has something wrong with them except me. And I'm going to run my Presidential campaign on that political platform. I love twisting people's words around in knots and taking everything spoken out of ccntext. This should be an invaluable trait in appointing the next Supreme Court justice. OK back to our feature. Happy voting.
I'd like to talk about two "Answers" to a computer test I never showed you people. Sometimes I can be pretty smart and lately with all the Vitamin C I've been taking I've been unusually mentally sharp, such that even I notice it. I was sharp on that whole Venus cycle, too- - as a predicter of the economy. That prediction has been dead on accurate. When it comes to refuting Einstain's special Theory of Relativity- - to bolster my points I even engaged in "Rush Limbaugh" logic of pushing a theory into the stratosphere of extreme to see if it will still fly, only to find that "illustrating absurdity to be absurd" is Fine only to learn that Einstein himself came to my own absurd conclusions about his own theory. So Back in the fall of 2009 I not only refuted what I knew then, but my refutations even worked for stuff I had not even LEARNED yet. That is being on top of things. Now to my two main points. If you add a known, plus a known amount of an unknown, plus an unknown ammount of an unknown- - - this is pretty much the quadratic equation template, and the answer is a numeric known, to complete the scenario. But quadratic equations come desguised. For instant an innocent expression like (x plus 7) times (x minus 3) = 20 --- breaks down to a quadratic equation along the perameters I've laid out. Quadratic equations are probably the FIRST things that I "forgot how to solve" upon finishing Algebra. The other question involved light. That twelve year old with Aspurgers said that you would go by a factor of 1.9 times the speed of light. At least run your answer past Herman Kane and he would suggest 1.999 - - - . But in reality 1.99999 - - is only an agragate answer. Some may quibble and say "Agragate" is a term involving Totality rather than Averages. Well I see Aggragate as "bottom line" and I see no reason why an anual Agragate figure cannot be pro-rated or "Agrigated" over intervals of one month, or even shorter. When they said we had six percent inflation last month, they really DON'T mean that we had six percent inflation last month. My figure is only for the ability of man to perceive light and not as a limiter of how fast man can travel. The figure ranges from a .99999 - - to a maximum of 2.99999. The difference can be analogized to an audio recording. You can only play a record or tape so fast- - which is having a Shakespherian play compacted to ten seconds or something. But there is no rule that says that zero has to be the baseline number- and now you see where I am going with this. Because you can also go that far the other way. In other words zero or atationary is that much below ONE. Now ONE represents zero or infinity and so now Twice or Moch Two represents a ONE. And then have the .99999 - - on top of that. I want to give you two more key examples. If you look at a magnifying glass at its focal length at Infinity- - you see a big blur. At the same time your eyeball, your face is the REAL image - - in essence "Becomes" the light or the Image. Now when you see the image upside down the same SIZE as it was formerly only inverted, this could be seen as moch two. Here the analogy breaks down a little. Real and Apparent image have somewhat of an inverse relation to each other as far as "flip flopping" or Romneyizing the focal point lines - - - but it isn't a perfect one for one representation. Another reason WHY an inverted object doesn't go on "shrinking forever" is as follows. You can only Approach a light source at the speed of light. Because of the way Ether works the "effective speed" of light varies whether you are approaching or departing. We have spoken of this as "slow" and "fast" light, and each has its own optical effect. "fast light" means turning the camera angle DOWN in Sketch, and "slow light' means turning the camera angle UP in Sketch. The reason why objects appear "distant" or stretched when approaching is that the light travels so functionally SLOWLY now (stay with me here) that light from the BACK of an image takes LONGER to reach your eyes than light from the Foreground. Capish? I've covered this before. The trouble is- - light from the BACK had to leave sooner to get to your eyes as the Same Time as the foreground. Follow? Here is a "light bulb" moment for you. Well- - in that difference in departure time of the light from the back or (far light) it takes Longer to reach your eyes and in that time the Object as a whole has MOVED tword you. So light from the back was Farther Away- - when it first left the Object- - hence you have the "fast fade away" for approaching objects.
No comments:
Post a Comment