atomic_fungus (atomic_fungus) wrote,
atomic_fungus
atomic_fungus

#3611: Bike should have new tires on it by 4 PM today.

I'm told they'll be finished by 3 PM today.

...I woke up, got dressed, put the stuff in the truck, and went over to the motorcycle dealership. The cylinder for the dirt bike was ready, mirabile visu.

So around 2:30 I'll go over there to pick up my wheels. It should take about an hour to reinstall them, and then I get to ride my motorcycle with tires I don't have to worry about. Will the insanity never cease?

* * *

Bill Maher thinks Obama spent the million Maher gave him on weed. Why would he have to do that? All he has to do is have the SS give the FBI a discreet call: "Hey, guys. Look, 'Beeman' says he wants 'oregano'. You have any 'oregano' laying around that you don't need?"

"Why, sure, we've got plenty of 'oregano' for 'Beeman'. We grabbed four tons of the stuff from a smug--"

"This isn't a secure line!"

"Right, sorry. Anyway, we'll send the usual amount via the usual channels."

"Tell 'ponyboy' not to use his real name in the visitor log this time."

"Right."

...that's all it takes. Do you honestly think the President has to go buy pot if he wants it? Hell no; SS will do it, and take the fall if they get caught. It's what they do.

But Mr. "Choom gang" smoking pot in the White House? Tell me it ain't happening.

* * *

Citing their apolitical nature, Obama shill AARP has asked Obama to stop citing them in his remarks about Obamacare.

See, Obama is talking about AARP as if they were endorsing him, and AARP doesn't like that, because it's pissing off the millions of AARP members who aren't Democrats...and if enough of those non-Democrat AARP members quit AARP--well, you're smart enough to do that math, aren't you?

* * *

So let's dig in to the post-debate discussion of why Barack Hussein "SCOAMF" Obama was such a stuttering clusterfuck of fail at the debate.

His friends say it's because he's so brilliant, a debate is a poor venue for him to display his genius.

Look up Occam's Razor; I'll wait.

The chances that Obama is simply an idiot are much higher than him doing poorly in a debate for any of the reasons cited at that link.

Look, let's be honest: Obama was not ready for the debate. Okay? He didn't bother to prepare for the debate because it's not fun and he already knows he's the smartest guy in the room no matter where he goes, so why should he have to do any prep for a debate with a Republican? Everyone knows those guys are all crazy neanderthal retards, and the smartest man in the world HISTORY certainly doesn't need to prepare for a debate with a mentally defective cave man!

Problem: whatever his political deficits may be, Mitt Romney is not a mentally defective cave man. Also, Barack Hussein Obama most assuredly ain't a genius. He may or may not be intelligent, but a genius he is not; and even if he is, a person of average intelligence who is prepared for debate can mop the floor with a genius who is not.

Obama's peeved expressions were due to having his nose rubbed in this unpleasant fact: If you want to keep the job, you're going to have to work for it, including doing things you don't enjoy doing--like debate prep.

Borepatch links Gormogons and everyone involved is 100% correct. The writer, 'Puter, says:
More interestingly, Obama looked shocked. Shocked that anyone -- much less Romney -- would dare challenge him so forcefully and publicly. After all, he is the Great and Wise Obama, The One, Captain Hope 'n' Change. Obama looked shocked that Romney actually could form coherent arguments, facilely commanding logic and facts to form a vicious verbal weapon, a weapon Romney mercilessly used to administer his epic verbal beatdown of Obama, a beatdown so complete that historians will speak of it as long as the Republic lasts. As gladdened as 'Puter's soul was by Romney's stellar performance ('Puter thinks Czar a bit tough on Romney), 'Puter was most struck by Obama's shocked bewilderment.
Of course Obama was shocked and bewildered. All his life, the people grooming him for politics have effused over how brilliant and erudite and well-educated and smart he is.

You hear something like that often enough and you come to believe it.

Not only that; Obama's had the way eased for him ever since he came to the United States. His entry into an exclusive school in Hawaii, his college years, his entry into Harvard Law School; his work as a professor, his candidacy for state office in Illinois, his candidacy for the Senate--all these things were made easier for him by the efforts of other people. Example: when Obama ran for the Senate, the press sued to have Jack Ryan's divorce records unsealed because Ryan had a real chance of beating Obama.

And when Obama was running for President, the press simply did not care to ask any hard questions about his background. George Bush had to release his college transcripts, but Obama's aren't anyone's business. Yeah.

The press, however, has done Obama a disservice, and in two ways.

First, Obama's woefully unprepeared to answer any questions more difficult than, "How do you feel today, Mr. President?" Univision asked him, "Why did you go back on your campaign promise to promote amnesty for illegal immigrants?" and the press complained that that was a tough question, when it's not even in the same hemisphere as "tough". It's a perfectly reasonable question to ask--"Hey, you campaigned on X, and you haven't done X. Why not?"

Second, by openly and unashamedly shiling for Obama, the press has destroyed its credibility. People who aren't Democrats simply no longer believe the press.

'Puter's thesis is that Romney demolished liberal orthodoxy at the debate, which is why Obama couldn't answer--but I'm not so sure. Liberal orthodoxy relies on blind faith and the ability to completely ignore reality in favor of "what ought to be", and it's no trouble for a dedicated liberal to dismiss facts if he is prepared for the debate.

It is true, however, that Obama is a true believer in the liberal cause. And liberalism is a jealous god.
Liberals can say what they will about us conservatives and our love of God, but God is (intellectually) neither verifiable or falsifiable. That's why we believers must have faith, as our limited reason alone offers no proof of His existence. Unfortunately for liberals, their heretical and quasi-religious beliefs are falsifiable, as they discovered (and promptly ignored) as stupid, Mormon, businessman, one-percenter Mitt Romney ripped the liberals' savior's still-beating heart from his chest and showed it to him live, in Technicolor, on every major broadcast and cable network in America.
I'm not saying that Obama's lack of preparation excuses his performance; far from it. I'm saying the opposite: there was absolutely no excuse for Obama to have performed that poorly. He screwed the pooch because his own hubris led him to think he could win the debate just by showing up, because he's such a genius that he could crush Mitt Romney without breaking a sweat. He was wrong, and it was because he's not as smart as he thinks he is.

No one is.

* * *

Michael Flynn has some good stuff up today.

Speaking of "the slippery slope", he links an article (headline: "Pedophiles want same rights as homosexuals") which says:
Critics of the homosexual lifestyle have long claimed that once it became acceptable to identify homosexuality as simply an “alternative lifestyle” or sexual orientation, logically nothing would be off limits. “Gay” advocates have taken offense at such a position insisting this would never happen. However, psychiatrists are now beginning to advocate redefining pedophilia in the same way homosexuality was redefined several years ago.
Emphasis added, because it for damn sure is happening, exactly as predicted.

So now the push is on to label pedophilia as simply an alternate sexual orientation--and the next stage is also as predictable as the tides:
“Pedophiles are not simply people who commit a small offense from time to time but rather are grappling with what is equivalent to a sexual orientation just like another individual may be grappling with heterosexuality or even homosexuality.”

He went on to say, “True pedophiles have an exclusive preference for children, which is the same as having a sexual orientation. You cannot change this person’s sexual orientation. He may, however, remain abstinent.”

When asked if he should be comparing pedophiles to homosexuals, Van Gijseghem replied, “If, for instance, you were living in a society where heterosexuality is proscribed or prohibited and you were told that you had to get therapy to change your sexual orientation, you would probably say that that is slightly crazy. In other words, you would not accept that at all. I use this analogy to say that, yes indeed, pedophiles do not change their sexual orientation.”

Dr. Quinsey, professor emeritus of psychology at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ontario, agreed with Van Gijseghem. Quinsey said pedophiles’ sexual interests prefer children and, “There is no evidence that this sort of preference can be changed through treatment or through anything else.”

In July, 2010 Harvard health Publications said, “Pedophilia is a sexual orientation and unlikely to change. Treatment aims to enable someone to resist acting on his sexual urges.
Now: tell me how well that shit would fly in today's world if you tried to tell homosexuals that they needed therapy to keep them from acting on their sexual urges. Yeah, I thought so.

So once you diminish the social stigma of pedophilia from "die, sick bastard!" to "oh, he can't help it, like gays can't" then the next step is to get the pedos out of the ghetto and into the mainstream. So we'll see man-boy love portrayed on sitcoms as normal and desirable, and there'll be "pedo pride" parades, and-and-and.

...unless we nip this shit in the bud. But I don't see how we can do that.

* * *

I want to say that I made the prediction about the unemployment rate entirely independently of any other source. It was my own prediction, made with facts I had available to me.

Ann Barnhardt also predicted the funny numbers from BLS. And her disclaimer applies to me, too:
I'm not psychic. I'm not a prophet. I don't hear voices. I simply am NOT STUPID, I have read history, and I have the stones to acknowledge obvious, objective reality. How anyone could NOT see all of this stuff coming is completely beyond me. You can see all of these things coming miles and miles away.
She's right. Here's what she said before I started reading her:
Further, don't be fooled by ANY statistics coming out of Washington D.C. The unemployment numbers are as fake as a three dollar bill. So are the consumer confidence and consumer price index numbers. They are completely and totally fabricated, and will show "improvement" as we move closer to the 2012 elections. It has already started with last week's completely phoney unemployment figures.

Analyzing these figures is as much of an absurd waste of time as analyzing Chinese economic data. THEY'RE MAKING IT ALL UP. IT HAS NO ANCHOR IN REALITY WHATSOEVER. Don't be a patsy. Don't be their stooge. WAKE UP. Look at the price of gold. Look at the price of crude. Look at the price of cotton. Look at the price of corn.
Emphasis removed, but she only added it to point out her prediction anyway.

The numbers are fake. That's all there is to it; unemployment did not drop last month by any 800,000 jobs and everyone with half a brain knows it. But the average Democrat voter does not.

* * *

Well, Sailor V finally bought a desktop computer. It's a Gateway with an i7, which ought to run WoW all right, but as configured it just has on-board graphics. I have my doubts about how well WoW will work on such a system, because the on-board video adaptor still shares memory with the processor and still has to make the processor wait for memory access while the GPU is accessing memory.

It's why El-Hazard runs WoW at 5 FPS: only one device on the memory bus can be accessing memory at any given moment, so the processor and GPU have to take turns. A faster processor and more memory will help this, but not eliminate the problem entirely. That's why I wanted to get a discrete video card for El-Hazard; moving the graphics off the system board frees up the CPU for processing, and the video card stores graphics data in its dedicated memory. The only time the CPU and GPU have to talk is when the CPU is telling the GPU what to display, and otherwise they can scream along at top speed.

The Commodore Amiga was revolutionary in the late 1980s because it did exactly that.

I do think Sailor V's new box will run WoW better than his one-lung laptop will, but that's not all that hard to accomplish. The i7 processor will just be waiting for the on-board graphics chip at a higher clock speed and with more computing cores.

* * *



I guess Liz is Jon's imaginary girlfriend.
Subscribe

  • #7698: Europeans don't know what hot weather is

    I read an article, not long ago, about the to-do that resulted when a couple of women in England got thrown out of a pub because their halter tops…

  • #7697: It's going back.

    Float ring flat AGAIN. In next to no time. This is a brand new pool and there is NO FUCKING WAY there are this many punctures in it due to animal…

  • #7696: Okay, I'm irritated now

    Fucking float ring went flat again, so I went outside and started going around the circumference of the damned thing to find the next leak. Brand…

  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded 

    When you submit the form an invisible reCAPTCHA check will be performed.
    You must follow the Privacy Policy and Google Terms of use.
  • 2 comments