Via Market-Ticker.org

GDP = C + I + G + (x – i)

That is, Consumption (by consumers) + Investment + Government Spending + Net Exports

Sir, i have completed my B737ng type rating and have it endorsed on my license now!! It was intense though . Let me know how’re things at your side.Take care, Sir

I have left the world a better place than what I found it.

What people often tend to forget is that scientists are people. And while one may not have the wherewithal to examine the actual scientific experiments or assess the relevant facts, one always has the ability to observe the behavior of the individuals citing them as evidence. There are a plethora of indications that an individual is not telling the straightforward truth, be it in person or in print. An ability to read those signs is all that is required to recognize when scientists are attempting to skate on their perceived authority rather than on any actual science, in which case one can always safely conclude that their claims are false. Observing the behavioral patterns was how I was able to correctly conclude that Man is not causing global warming because there is no global warming.

I will let my mind ruminate on examples of the things that have tipped me towards not believing the global warming scam as I thinking actively about other things right now. I will try to post them here as I remember them.

Here we go:

• The lack of eagerness–as expressed by Feynmamn–to bend over backwards to have ones work actively critiqued*
• a dismissive condescension

More as I think of them…

*Here is an excerpt from Feynmann’s talk

But there is one
feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.

Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.

In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.

Read the whole thing, his take on education scams is fantastic.

This idea that we have to appeal to people who have no ideology by eliminating our own ideology is exactly backwards. We have an ideology that historically worked and provided levels of prosperity and freedom that have been unparalleled in the history of the world. And our GOP leadership is afraid of this. They’re terrified of it and the nominee will not stand up and defend it. And so we’re going to give up the winning story to go to some amorphous thing in the middle and I predict it’s not going to turn out well.

Which is why we need to bitch-slap the GOP if they foist Willard-The Rat–Romney on us. They are cowards.

In the next few days, we’re going to develop the equivalent of the contract from 1994, except this is going to be a personal one between me and you, because I’m asking you to make me president and therefore, I have a personal responsibility. It’s going to come in two parts. Part one is conditional and requires your help. Part two, I can do if I win the election, without having to condition it.

Part one only works if you help me and we run a team campaign, which means, by the way, we have to replace Bill Nelson with a conservative.

But if you help us, and in addition to winning the presidency, we elect a Republican Senate and a Republican House, I will ask them on January 3rd to stay in office, and I will ask them to immediate pass the repeal of Obama-care.

I will ask them to immediately pass the repeal of the Dodd-Frank bill, which is killing housing, killing small business and killing independent banks.

And I will ask them to pass the repeal of Sarbanes- Oxley, which is crippling American businesses with no net profit.

And my goal is to have all three bills sitting there, waiting, so the minute I am sworn in, I can sign all three and we’re off to a pretty good opening morning.
(CROWD GOES NUTS–M)
Now those three promises are conditional. We have to win the Senate by a big enough margin to manage it and we have to increase our strength in the House. Help me do that, I’ll do those three.

Now let me tell you some things and we’re going to put this together in a way that you’ll be able to see in writing with my signature and you’ll be able to hold me accountable. There are a series of executive orders I can issue that the Congress can’t stop as long as they’re within the law. The very first executive order will abolish all of the White House czars as of that moment.

We will issue immediately an executive order on the same day. All of this is going to happen about two hours after the inaugural address.

OK? No point in hanging out and having fun. Before we get to go to the various balls that night, we’re going to have a work period. This is going to be a working presidency.

Suck it, Jenifer Rubin

Here is why.

I will be voting against Romney and the psychopaths that support him.

If Willard-The Rat-Romney is your nominee, then I want you and the rest of the GOP establishment to feel the pain. While I am a registered republican, I am first a constitutional conservative.
I have been listening to arguments like yours since Bush–it was a mistake!–I.

Since Bob–whatever!–Dole.
Since Bush–er,ug,a,wuh-II.
Since John–’my friends’–McCain.

All enemies (yes, enemies–in fact, if not word) of conservationism.

No, Mitch.

Its personal now. If Willard is the nominee, then I want to make you cry.
.
I want to see you pan-handling in the streets, because your income stream–the tit of my money in D.C. –is not in your control. When you hold your hat out for alms, I will spit in it and then on you.

Then I will bitch-slap you.

I will then be working to destroy every damned rino I know locally and nationally.

So, Mitch–You take a deep breath if you and your ilk succeed in foisting another rino on us. Then bend over, because I am going to shove those 10 points your wrote about right up your ass–with ear laps.

The attacks on Newt Gingrich by the Establishment Romneyites are not about Newt Gingrich at all. They are attacks on conservatives. By the Republican Party Establishment

It is time to kick these damn RINOS in the teeth.