29 Replies to “2016: Into The Fog”

  1. Thanks Kate; Always informative and entertaining. Recognizing the time limittions of film clip attention spans It is reasonable to assume Bill, not Billary, will have thought through to Donald Trump is now just in the “Cutting of the Gordian Knot of Washington/Smreaedia” stage of his Canadidcy.
    Surely, not surly, most who come here to hear common Sense recognize Trump’s is not and will not let poilitical naiveness to allow bluster; disingenuity; and deflection of the simicure seeking politicos in and about the Washington playground to seriously affect his making forward thinking the “buzz” of a Trump Administration.
    The politicos, except at the very highest of present vested interests will be quickly bought off and move to the “tell all’ sleazey side of the equation. There will be a surge of American Patriotism not seen since Saul Alinsky provided a text book on exploiting the immaturity of the Baby-Boomer et al University Clones.
    Just maybe Bill Whittle will then ignore the C.Y.A. aspect of current survival in the decline of the Progressive Era and give a fuller explanation of what’s going on. There will be many hurt feelings and sore wallets among the set-aside incumbents. But this Canadian is confident North America is moving out of the “Fog” of ignorance for at least a while.

  2. I hope you are right but I have trouble seeing much relief in the current backslide into serfdom. In Canada, the only thing worse than the present would be an NDP BC and Saskatchewan which, one might hope, means we have more or less hit bottom. If your optimism refers to a corrective wave in a bear market then I could more easily agree, given the lock that the progressives hold on our culture. The culture, and a more fickle determinant – the economy, determines the level of thought given to the action of marking a ballot.
    Your thesis will be tested this November as I doubt Trump, the loose-cannon populist can defeat the Evil progressive Hag.

  3. Assuming Clinton isn’t charged with some kind of crime, the server problem, like Benghazi will go away, because once again the Dems will convince the RINOs to not mention either because then they would be getting personal and very un-presidential don’t you know, and what does it matter now anyway. In 2016 the warm blanket of fawning coverage & photo ops will cover Hillary who now gets to play faux hawk and libertarian, enjoying media immunity.
    BTW, the FBI director, as when he correctly termed the SB attacks terrorism, will decide for himself and his agency if HRC faces any charges, without consulting the president, who can get red faced raged all he wants. One would think even a criminal charge would crush her candidacy. This could be crazy, but we live in extraordinary times, imagine it – Evil CEO Donald vrs Indicted Hillary.
    Candidates like Cruz, Rubio and Fiorina say to their base they will hold her accountable, but what will they say to the nation? Will the GOP candidate turtle after one good debate performance as before, unwilling to take on the media? While I don’t trust Trump, yet, as a politician, I trust he will go after the Dems, Clintons and the beltway doofuses. Hillary, who recently demonstrated her hypocrisy by going negative with sexism attacks, should and does fear Trump and no doubt would rather take on Cruz &/or Rubio whom she feels she can cow into silence with the Alinsky shoutdown, recently employed to success by our Dauphin PM.
    At least Trump will take on the media, in fact get them to do his bidding. The media here and there are the real problem at this time, appointing themselves as wise sages when their qualifications and motives are suspect at best.

  4. Here’s the thing about Trump and I think this is what Whittle is alluding to; Trump talks too much.
    In Council Bluffs he talked for an hour and 20 minutes and it was a pretty good speech except, he tells the audience that he will use his power as president to ensure that Ford builds their plants in America. In the next breath he talks about the great real estate deals he’s doing in China. How come it’s ok for him to build in places like China but not ok for Ford.
    I think he needs to get his ducks lined up a bit better.

  5. Oh boy, now that was dense. It’s kinda hard to build in USofA and ship the building to the Chicoms now isn’t it. Real estate development can bring cash back to America with out jeopardizing jobs in the USA, Fords, not so much.

  6. Oh I see. We’re gonna use selective mercantilism that views some kinds of offshore capital investment good but some kinds not so good. I happen to remember Trump’s numbers. He will threaten Ford with a 35% tariff if they don’t build in America. How would that work?
    I did agree with Trump’s point about China using devaluation of their currency to hammer the rest of the world on the trade front but is it also China’s fault we have people like Ontario’s Wynne who seems determined to drive the last manufacturing plants out of her province or agencies like the EPA doing the same thing in the US.

  7. On Whittle’s last point…yeah, that musk is a real genius. Used the help of almost $5 billion of confiscated wealth to land a rocket back on it’s a$$. (something first done almost 50 years ago) Thereby saving a few million. The saying ‘penny wise and pound foolish’ comes to mind. I wonder what would be the opportunity cost of the voluntary use of that $5 billion in wealth? I’m betting it would add up to more than a few millions saved…
    This parasite will always be firmly attached to confiscated wealth in some fashion. That’s his genius…

  8. Stradi, you’ll like this quote: “government is poor at picking winners, but losers are good at picking government.”

  9. Strad, currently Obama and enablers are intent on bankrupting the US. Anytime we get something actually produced or achieved it’s a good day. Go back and read the replies to your $5 billion complaint from last time.

  10. Ah, it’s a question of degree…the reverse to an expensive whore is less of a whore than a cheap whore.
    Pragmatism, isn’t it wonderful? One can rationalize anything…

  11. Just out of curiosity, please tell us which organization, public or private, was regularly landing spent rocket boosters on land (50 years ago), tail down without damage, and them re-using them to launch payloads into orbit?

  13. Apollo Lander – swing and a huge miss. The lander was lifted from Earth into lunar orbit by another huge rocket, then landed once on a body with much lower gravity, and the only part that took off again was the ascent stage which was discarded to crash back into the moon.
    That is hardly the same as a rocket that can take off from Earth, take a payload to orbit, then land back on Earth to be reused for other payload missions.
    Do you always compare apples to entrenching tools ?

  15. …it’s odd the welfare queen musk purloined some of that same technology used almost 50 years ago…
    Other than gratuitous Musk bashing, do you have a point other than to prove your only knowledge of science and technology comes from that fount of unimpeachable wisdom, Wikipaedia ?
    You might be surprised to learn that the Musk rocket also has some form of gyroscope, first used as an instrument for aerial navigation over 100 years ago, and if it is liquid fueled, uses technology also developed over 100 years ago by Robert Goddard.
    You will no doubt be surprised to know that the various Apollo rocket engines were derivatives of the various German rocket engines developed in WWII (in no small part because they were designed by the same crew), which were advancements of Goddard’s engines.
    You will also be surprised to learn that advances in technology do not have to arise de novo (look it up) but most often build upon and/or improve previous advances. That does not make it theft.

  16. Other than gratuitous Musk bashing, do you have a point other than to prove your only knowledge of science and technology comes from that fount of unimpeachable wisdom, Wikipaedia ?
    The point is, they landed a rocket on it’s a$$ almost 50 years ago using throttleable rocket engines.
    And I pointed you there because you need a very simple explanation, and Wikipedia is special made for the simple.

  17. The point is, they landed a rocket on it’s a$$ almost 50 years ago using throttleable rocket engines.
    I’ll repeat as you are evidently very, very special, landing a purpose designed disposable lander that only had to land once, at 1/6 Earth’s gravity, and which had to be taken to its landing place by a much larger vehicle, is not the same feat as making a rocket designed to take off from full Earth gravity, with a payload, capable of delivering that payload, and then returning to land at full Earth gravity, intact, to be reused.
    The latter is much harder, and had never been done before.
    As far as your apparent infatuation with throttleability goes,you will be pleased to learn that the first rocket engine with a throttle was the Walter 109-509 used in the Me-163 Komet of WWII, so that is another concept NASA borrowed from the Nazis, or developed further by the former Nazis working for NASA, but not developed de novo by NASA.
    …Wikipedia is special made for the simple.
    Indeed that explains your penchant for it, but not your lack of understanding it.

  18. The latter is much harder, and had never been done before.
    Ohh, you’re hiding behind the technical differences involved in landing a ‘unmanned’ vehicle at 6 times the gravity and a ‘manned’ landing on the moon. heh
    It’s haaard…and they worked reeally haard at it. Typical leftist, entitled, comment.
    Yeah, slide rules versus computers and computer modelling…oh, and almost $5 billion in confiscated wealth.

  19. Ohh, you’re hiding behind the technical differences involved in landing a ‘unmanned’ vehicle at 6 times the gravity and a ‘manned’ landing on the moon.
    The difference between the two events are hardly minor, yours is the equivalent of dropping an M551 by parachute, mine developing a flying M1.
    Typical leftist, entitled, comment.
    You really are some kind of confused, your comments are those of typical ill educated “progressives” who know little to nothing of science and technology, and are bitterly envious of anyone with a couple of bucks.
    …oh, and almost $5 billion in confiscated wealth
    Two questions: 1) where do you think NASA’s money comes from, 2) why haven’t they been able to do anything with that throttle you are so smitten by given that they have had far more than a measly $5 billion every year to fritter away ?

  20. Reading Diego and strad argue is how I imagine a debate on science would go between turdo and Hawking. Since you’re probably too dense to figure it out strad, you’d be turdo.

  21. Well, they’re both for wealth redistribution, you’d agree with them both 🙂

  22. Nope. I totally disagree with wealth redistribution. Any other assumptions you’d like to make about me?

  23. I totally disagree with wealth redistribution.
    Really? So, why do you agree with the transfer, by whatever means, of confiscated wealth to people like musk? Are you a hypocrite?

  25. Does anyone seriously believe, that the scientists and engineers from the US (and every other country that is putting stuff into space), thought that it was impossible to do? Were they too stupid until musk came around?
    Just maybe, there were good reasons not to do it.
    BTW: Does anyone know where I can get one of those new things that allow you to crack an egg into a plastic shell … then boil it … so you don’t have to peel the egg? Or that plastic thing that allows you cut up a wiener, in slices, by closing the lid … so you don’t have to use a knife?

  27. Does anyone seriously believe, that the scientists and engineers from the US (and every other country that is putting stuff into space), thought that it was impossible to do? Were they too stupid until musk came around?
    No, but there is alway someone (or ones) who puts it all together, whether it is rockets or egg boilers and hot dog peelers, and makes it work. NASA has all, if not more, the “computers and computer modelling” Musk had access to, plus vastly more “confiscated wealth” funding, and 50 years of groundwork to build on, yet they didn’t make it work for what ever reason, not the least of which probably has been feckless political leadership.
    Amazon has the hot dog slicers and Eggstractor (As Seen On TV!), if that is what you are talking about.
    So, you don’t agree with transferring confiscated wealth to musk?
    I am sure you are dull enough to think any money Musk gets from government gets goes straight to Musk’s pocket and nowhere else, and that he looks like the Monopoly man, wearing a top hat and tails, lighting cigars with $100 bills, and not also into the pockets of, for example, all those people cheering when the project worked, or all the materiel suppliers for the project, and so on down the supply, fabrication, and other logistic and development chains, and that the government will never get any benefit from the technologies developed.
    However, the way it works, whether it is Musk, or Boeing, or McDonald-Douglas, or Armalite, or whoever, is that the government takes tax money, and I have little doubt they “confiscate” far more of mine than yours, and gives it to people to develop things it thinks it needs or wants. Sometimes the government is smart and makes F-15s, sometimes phenomenally stupid – like giving it people researching the drinking habits of lesbian hookers in Thailand. Given the choice, I’d just as soon the government give the money to a guy I don’t particularly like who is developing something on which government might get some ROI down the road, like a reusable rocket.
    Regardless, the simple fact is that unless you are living in a wattle and daub hut, you will use something today that was made, developed, or derived, because the government took tax money and gave it to a private company to make or develop something. If you want a practical example, if you have ever flown in a 737, 747, or 757, thank William Boeing and his successors for taking “confiscated wealth” to build upon – “purloin” in your confused cosmology – others aviation progress, to make all those B-17s, B-29s, B-47s and B-52s, and also develop the technologies that went into their commercial airliners.
    You live in a cartoon world, grow up.

  28. This discussion is a great example of the difference between the libertarian perspective on the immorality of government playing favourites with stolen loot and the happy-faced socialists masquerading as conservatives. Pro-business socialism is still socialism. Musk is a rent seeker’s rent seeker no mater what technological breakthrough he has improved upon. Defense spending, however can muddy this distinction.
    Manned space flight has been the twentieth century version of the Pyramids when one considers the incremental costs over the achievements of, and as a consequence, forgone achievements in unmanned space technology. A free market would likely not have gone into the colossal waste of manned space flight until something much more efficient than rocket propulsion comes along. If however, the filthy rich want to pay to burn a lifetime supply of energy for one short ride, it’s even more immoral that it be subsidized with stolen loot.

  29. Pro-business socialism is still socialism.
    Yeah, Hitler’s model. Good thing they don’t subscribe to the rest of it, or Chico would be in trouble.

Proudly powered by WordPress & Skyrocket Themes

MENU

Navigation