From some socialist asshole:
“You better get ready for… war.”
We are. Question is: are you?
Which reminds me: it’s range time. Now, if you’ll excuse me…
Afterthought: This assumes that we’d be allowed to defend ourselves against attackers, of course.
From Reader Mike S., about Granny Salma Hayek:
“I wouldn’t sell my soul for her, but I’d arrange for a long-term lease.”
Considering my advanced age, I’d settle for a lifetime one. Just a quick reminder of the topic under discussion:
From the Bible, Proverbs 24:17-18:
17 Do not gloat when your enemy falls; when they stumble, do not let your heart rejoice
18 or the Lord will see and disapprove and turn his wrath away from them.
Or else you could just ignore the Good Book:
When it comes to Commies, Greens, hypocrites and the like tripping on their own dicks / getting hoist by their own petard etc., I’m afraid I am very much of the latter persuasion.
One of the few side benefits of being an atheist, I guess.
From NYfC, some politician:
“Most of what we saw were crimes of poverty-people who are stealing things like toothpaste, people who were stealing things like, you know, soap. And that means if you’re stealing those things, you need them.”
Justifying crime on the basis of need. Were this not on the Planet Manhattan, I’d think we were all going bats.
Random thought: think this asshole would say differently if someone broke into her house and stole her $10,000 Persian carpet because they “needed” some floor covering?
#RhetoricalQuestion
From Steven Miller:
“Data centers being built isn’t the problem, the data in those data centers is.”
It has always been my major concern about this whole business. It started way back, when I found out that Google was suppressing search results for my old Nation Of Rifleman website. Even keying in whole sentences or blocks of text from a specific post didn’t bring up the post, or even the website itself.
So now I’m supposed to trust artificial “intellgence”, when I have no idea what the search criteria are, or what sources were accessed to produce those “intelligent” results?
I don’t fucking think so, Simon.
From this guy (via Insty):
“There is Chief Justice Roberts, the institutionalist, who strategically guides the Supreme Court by not deciding more than is necessary to decide. Then there is Chief Justice Roberts, the institutionalist, who strategically guides the Supreme Court by deciding more than is necessary to decide. Which Roberts do we get in each case?”
Going by past decisions, we get the Roberts which is most likely to piss off conservatives in that particular case.