As Mom used to say, “Don’t do that, someone is going to lose an eye!”
Best comment on Instapundit.
Dear Snowflake. I refer you to the sage Larry Correia:
A friend of mine who is a political activist said something interesting the other day, and that was for most people on the Left political violence is a knob, and they can turn the heat up and down, with things like protests, and riots, all the way up to destruction of property, and sometimes murder…
… But for the vast majority of folks on the Right, it’s an off and on switch. And the settings are Vote or Shoot Fucking Everybody. And believe me, you really don’t want that switch to get flipped, because Civil War 2.0 would make Bosnia look like a trip to Disneyworld.
Feel free to adjust that rheostat. You’ll know when our switch is flipped.
The Max software — plagued by issues that could keep the planes grounded months longer after U.S. regulators this week revealed a new flaw — was developed at a time Boeing was laying off experienced engineers and pressing suppliers to cut costs.
Increasingly, the iconic American plane-maker and its subcontractors have relied on temporary workers making as little as $9 an hour to develop and test software, often from countries lacking a deep background in aerospace — notably India.
I hope Boeing goes bankrupt.
Update: Upon further reflection I’m struggling to reconcile two opposite policies of the Congress; a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage for busboys and at the local car wash, versus nine dollars an hour for H1-B engineers who are displacing American engineers (including your’s truly) and working on the software that keeps the airplane from crashing (oops!).
WASHINGTON (AP) – Looking to shed the “do-nothing Congress” label, House Democrats proposed a bill that would offer nationwide concealed carry permit reciprocity among all 50 states in exchange for a token one cent per round bullet tax. The bill would oblige all Democrat members of Congress to pinky-swear they won’t suddenly jack the tax up to a dollar a round the second they hold majority power in both the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.
…
The punch line.
Asked if he’d sign such a bill into law, President Trump answered decisively.
“Don’t be ridiculous. I’d sooner email the Ayatollah our nuclear codes,” Trump said while making ‘you’re an idiot’ faces. “But when Democrats regain power, they might try something like this in the future. However, if we pick a rabid pro-gunner to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg when she retires, we’ll probably be able to get the tax invalidated on Second Amendment grounds alone.”
In the middle of directing the difficult task of transferring the historically important records of the Obama administration into the National Archives, the archivist in charge, David Ferriero, ran into a serious problem: A lot of key records are missing.
…
… the accumulation of recent congressional testimony has made it clear that the Obama administration itself engaged in the wholesale destruction and “loss” of tens of thousands of government records covered under the act as well as the intentional evasion of the government records recording system by engaging in private email exchanges. So far, former President Obama, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, former Attorney General Lynch and several EPA officials have been named as offenders. The IRS suffered record “losses” as well. Former federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy called it “an unauthorized private communications system for official business for the patent purpose of defeating federal record-keeping and disclosure laws.”
So the truth may never be known on many of the key failures and embarrassments of the Obama administration and the Hillary Clinton record as Secretary of State of the United States.
RealClearPolitics’ and Western Journal’s truth-telling about tens of thousands of missing records at the National Archives is being studiously ignored by the mainstream and social media.
The way you sit on the sofa with your man reveals A LOT about your relationship – and it’s bad news if you’re in separate rooms
Rebecca Flood, The Sun.
SLOBBING out on the sofa is something we all do, but if you have a favourite position with your partner it could say a lot of about your relationship.
Whether you prefer to sit at either ends of the couch, or prop your legs up on them, body language expert Dr Georgina Barnett revealed what this says about you as a couple.
A study of 2,000 adults, by sofa and carpet specialist ScS, found the most popular sitting position is in fact relaxing on different sofas.
Sitting on a separate couch was preferred by 37 per cent of British couples, so if you’ve ever been playing a game on your phone while your other half is binge-watching a series, you’re not alone.
Dale Gillespie, head of acquisition at ScS, said: “It’s interesting to see that something as simple as the way we relax might reveal something about our relationships.
“Odds are, you’re sat on the sofa right now as you’re reading this so, if you’re with a significant other, check if you’re sat in any of these top positions to see if you agree!”
Sat on different sofas – 37%
8
This is the most popular sitting position among BritsCredit: ScS
Dr Barnett says this position is much more common on long-term couples, so if you’re reading a book on one and your hubby is watching football on the other – welcome to middle-age.
She says: “It does not necessarily indicate any problems, but rather a couple that has grown used to each other over the years.
“However, the lack of proximity in this position can indicate that the couple have become indifferent towards each other, or possibly that they have fallen into leading separate lives.”
Legs on lap – 20%
8
This may look cosy, but think againCredit: ScS
In second place is one person resting their legs on another person’s lap.
While this may seem like a relaxed pose, Dr Barnett said it could signify something more worrying.
She said: “Whoever has their legs on their partner is the one in control.
“The person with their legs over their partner is to some degree demanding attention and has the dominant position – possibly in the relationship, as well as in the moment.”
But it’s not all doom and gloom, as she added: “This position usually indicates a happy relationship, signifying a couple that are comfortable with each other.”
Side-by-side (touching not cuddling) – 18%
8
Take note guys – this is the best way to watch TVCredit: ScS
Another common pose, Dr Barnett said this shows a “happy and contented couple”.
She added: “They may not be in the first flush of passion, but they are connected and seeking to maintain contact with each other.
“Couples who sit in this position have confidence in the relationship and have a level of trust that allows for a healthy amount of space.
“There is intimacy combined with freedom.”
Opposite sides of the sofa – 16%
8
This literally shows you’re drifting as a coupleCredit: ScS
This position is often referred to as the “bookends”, and indicates some frostiness in the relationship, as it visually shows how far apart a couple has drifted.
Dr Barnett said: “It usually indicates a couple that has become detached.
“Taking a seat at the opposite end from the other can be a protest behaviour to try and make a point following a row.
“However, in the absence of conflict, if this is a regular seating position it suggests the couple might have grown apart, especially if they used to sit closer together.
“This is even more serious if both have their legs crossed pointing away from each other.”
Cuddling in the corner – 12%
8
Again this may look sweet but isn’t a good signCredit: ScS
Again this might seem like a loved-up pose, but Dr Barnett warned there could be underlying power struggles.
She said: “There is closeness in this relationship, but this position can also signify a power differential in the relationship.
“The person spread out in the corner is owning the space, suggesting confidence and power in the relationship.
“The partner in the middle however, might be less secure and is seeking contact and reassurance – literally clinging on.”
Cuddling in the middle – 9%
8
This is officially the best pose to watch telly inCredit: ScS
This pose is the holy grail of sofa sitting, symbolising the ultimate loved-up couple.
Dr Barnett said: “There is equality in this relationship and a real connection – the main focus of being on the sofa is togetherness.
“This is often found early in a relationship where there is more of a need for assurance, and the passion is still very strong!
“If the couple’s heads are leaning together as well, this indicates an emotional as well as physical connection.”
Corner cuddle with tucked legs – 8%
8
Again, not good if you’re the one with your legs upCredit: ScS
Similar to when one person is spread out in the corner, this indicates one half of the couple is more powerful than the other.
Dr Georgia explained: “The one with their legs tucked is generally drawing comfort in some way.
“As with the earlier cuddling couple, the person in the corner tends to be the stronger one in the relationship, and the partner more submissive.
“This position is sometimes seen when one is insecure in a partnership, as they are to some extent adopting a fetal position.”
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.
“In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
If you get an appeal from “donald-jtrump.com” for campaign contributions or personal information, don’t respond.
It’s fraud. Go back and look at the domain name I wrote in on the line above; “d_o_n_a_l_d_’-‘_j_t_r_u_m_p_.com”. An inconspicuous character like a dash changes the address from a bonafide one to a sham. It’s easy to steal or recreate the images and layout of any existing site, to make it look genuine.
It’s odd that I can’t find any other posts or articles about this type of criminal fraud. But the effect is twofold; one to steal money, two to deny support to President Trump’s reelection campaign and make people hesitate before sending money to The President.
One of the most interesting legal phenomena of the Trump administration has been the increased use of—and public focus on—previously obscure federal statutes that delegate surprisingly broad power to the president. From using the National Emergencies Act to build his border wall and the Federal Vacancies Reform Act to control the upper echelons of the executive branch, to using the Trade Expansion Act to raise tariffs against Canada in the dubious name of “national security,” President Donald Trump has pursued an array of actions that at once seem to be both within the letter of these laws and an indictment of the open-endedness of their statutory delegations.
If TheDaily Caller is correct, the latest addition to this list may soon be the Insurrection Act—which the president plans to use “to remove illegal immigrants from the United States,” the outlet reported yesterday. If the president does actually call out the U.S. military to help deport undocumented immigrants, that could be the most clearly lawful—and most historically indefensible—example of this phenomenon that we’ve seen to date.
The “Insurrection Act” is an umbrella term for a series of statutes that date all the way back to the Founding, and through which Congress has exercised its authority under Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution “to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” The Constitution’s drafters understood that there would be circumstances in which local authorities were inadequate to protect the populace and enforce the laws, and so went out of their way not only to identify three circumstances in which troops could be used, but also to give the power to delimit those circumstances to Congress, not the president.
Obama was a lazy fuck. Otherwise he could have done a lot more damage , especially during that period of his first term that he had both houses of Congress.
Donald Trump is a dynamo, always looking for new tools and different avenues of attack on the challenges and problems he sees. Since he is beginning to realize how totally useless the Republican Party is and how monumental the challenge of illegal immigration is; he will use this I am sure.
Throughout history, poverty is the normal condition of man.
Advances which permit this norm to be exceeded -- here and there, now and then -- are the work of an extremely small minority, frequently despised, often condemned, and almost always opposed by all right-thinking people. Whenever this tiny minority is kept from creating, or (as sometimes happens) is driven out of a society, the people then slip back into abject poverty. This is known as "bad luck." -- Robert A. Heinlein
Wrath Of Gnon
“In an age where the media publish endless stupidities, the cultured man is defined not by what he knows but by what he ignores.” ー Nicolás Gómez Dávila
On the North River 