- Some ammo for the next time some statist tells you that laws should be obeyed just because they’re there. Give ’em something to think about.
- This has been around a few months, but it’s pretty interesting if accurate: “Real-Life Rearden Metal?”
- A Lyttony of bad writing: Every winner of the Edward Bulwer-Lytton contest, 1983 to the present. That’s the contest where entrants write just the opening paragraph of a really, really, really bad novel. (Thank heaven that’s as far as they go!)
Speaking of really bad, these guys (source) look like like something from the opening scene of a really bad horror movie. A nest of identity-stealing pods? Giant worms? Articulate brains?
Ew. But at the same time … Awwww.
Deadlining this week. Will post as I can …
I want one, please.
Laws should only be obeyed if they are not counterfeit. Any “law” forbidding secession (among other things) is counterfeit and you are not obligated to obey it.
Those puppies make me think of botfly larvae. But I guess the wrinkles hold all sorts of tasty fat, if you’re into that sort of food.
I thought the question of whether or not the Declaration of Independence was legal was settled by a string or armed debates starting about 1776. The side that saw it as legal, won. Next question?
The world economy is tanking, freedom is on the retreat globally and these jokers wanted to reargue a question that was settled in excess of 200 years ago? Yes, it was illegal at the time. Duh. If it was legal, the British bankers and mercantilists would not of sent an army to enforce the status quo and arrest the signatories of the Declaration of Independence.
The question ought to be, When are we going to pen the new one?
Clarie – I will take one please
and why are we even giving this legal ^&$( the time of day
ahh well, grouchy this morning, off to fight the statists in my county planning department. Shoot them all and let god sort it out
Happy Monday all
I think their gorgeous!
I sorta figured I’d get this type of response on the “is it legal” thing. I should have noted more clearly that this is something to point out for the benefit of the “all law should be obeyed” types. Of course you guys already get it.
LOL, I didn’t figured people would be lining up for those puppies. I suppose all puppies are cute by definition. But really …
The coats on those dogs are very unpleasant. They look so soft but it’s like petting coarse sandpaper. Tempermental little bastards too.
If a sharpei fell out of a plane, they’d be all right-they have enough loose skin to glide down. The owner of a local used bookstore had a sharpei,and Winston is right-the skin is like a blend of sandpaper and waxed paper. Her sharpei was friendly enough-didn’t seem to have an attitude to me.
That picture reminds me of an email that an aging neighbor keeps sending around……..Be thankful that wrinkles don’t hurt. The pile of them kind of looks like something forgotten in the back of the refrigerator, but I’ve still got to say Awwwww.
Always go for ghe dog that carries enough skin it can patch itself, or build another dog. Cool looking dogs.
I think the sharpei pups are adorable:-).. but then again, I even like Chinese cresteds… ‘shar-pei MEANS ‘sandy coat’, its supposed to feel like ‘sandpaper’ … like most of the Chinese breeds, they are aloof and reserved, but very loyal. My personal favorite breed is the gorgeous, sweet, goofy Irish setter … but, I used to walk a sharpei at the shelter that I grew very fond of. Very smart dog:-)
Nov. 9 is going to be interesting. All broadcast will be shut down for a test to see if they can do it.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/did-you-know-feds-will-temporarily-cut-off-all-tv-and-radio-broadcasts-on-nov-9/
From Jim B’s link:
[QUOTE]So this begs the question: is the first ever national EAS test really a big deal?
Probably not. At least, not yet.[UNQUOTE]
Oh, but it *is* a big deal! OTOH, it won’t touch the internet — which tells us how even more significant the ‘net will be in our lives. (And why the feds wish to control it so badly.)
Jim B — thanks for the link. I blogged it. Pat — totally agreed.
How many people are going to be watching TV or listening to radio if the president ever “needs” to address the nation? How many will be online or have some ‘net capable device in their pockets?
The hugest “hit” TV shows of today draw audiences that would have gotten them cancelled in a hurry back in television’s heyday.
We can be glad Our Beloved Leaders remain behind the times.
To argue against the Declaration is a recursive attempt to argue against the principles of the Declaration – blithering silliness. An extrapolation of that logic would preclude property ownership or moving from state to state or, indeed, any form of self-determinism.
Wrinkledoggies!!! A boatload of “Awwwwwwwwww!!!!” in every furrow!