New blog address

coldheartedtruth.wixsite.com/truth

Last chance to coexist past us by?

To be clear... I saw "another" threat on the last comment thread leading me to believe that we can no longer coexist...

So a simple proposal. To pull the Legacy blog back out of the trash can (literally Blogger saves deleted blogs in a trash can area  for 90 days) and have Roger and Reverend have sole access on that blog. Posting and commenting. 

Remove Reverend from this blog and only have the conservatives with access (and moderate for KD and others who do not have blogger accounts). 

This will no longer allow for any "debates". But then again, when was the last time we really had real debates.  Seems the only real debate on what subject we should be debating. One side wants to discuss the relative subjects of the day, while the other side wants to talk about Trump 24-7. 

But it will allow everyone a chance to express their own opinions in their own "safe place" and certain people will not be triggered by bad words anymore.

Hey... we all get that internet debate is a contact sport. It is not for the thin of skin. Sometimes people go over the line (as they always are prone to do online) and I have no time or energy to monitor, supervise, play daddy, or listen to more threats. 

Hershel will lose, Roger says he is done forever, and New Mexico just decided to eliminate learning from school.

 

The Bee stings again!

Democrats Endorse Trump After He Calls For Destroying The Constitution https://t.co/dgTOxbW5Id

— The Babylon Bee (@TheBabylonBee) December 5, 2022

Open Mic

222-213

It only took what? Almost four weeks? 

counting is rocket science now for America

Still even now there is a recount that is still technically going on (even as nobody thinks it will change anything and there has been a concession). Because of course, why wouldn't it takes a few more weeks to count a second time. Apparently some are complaining (or triggered as it were) that that law requires them to be done by Dec 13th. 

How demanding of the law.

Sunday Funnies

Two Big Ten teams in the College Football Playoffs?

With the USC loss - it looks like "the" Ohio State University should make the playoffs

TCU is playing right now and down a touchdown. A loss by TCU could make for an interesting call there. Certainly Ohio State has to pass them up? But do you allow a 9-1 TCU into the playoffs or do you drop them all the way down below two loss Alabama? If you do bring in Alabama would you have them ranked 4th and have the two SEC and two Big Ten teams play each other in the first round? 

Let's say TCU pulls it out today. You have three undefeated teams and only one team with one loss (Ohio State) left. That would seem to be a no-brainer.  But I have read some analysis that the committee would (or might) decide to take Alabama over Ohio State but that would require them to reorder the two teams when there is literally no reason to do so (neither team is playing this week). 

Of course, the argument (a poor one in my opinion) would be from SEC fans who suggest that it is a better conference and deserves two teams over the Big Ten. 

But there are three SEC and three Big Ten teams in the top eight. Ohio State has a win over Penn State. Alabama has no wins over top ten teams. But it is the losses that matter more. Ohio State's only loss to undefeated and #2 Michigan versus two losses (#6 Tennessee and #14 LSU) for Alabama. Alabama ends the season with only two wins with teams that ended the season in the top 25. 

Either way... I am guessing Michigan is rooting for TCU (would not want to play Ohio State again). In fact, not sure that anyone would choose to play Ohio State over any of the other teams that have been in the mix (TCU, USC, Alabama). 

Open mic

Time to take a hiatus...

Between Roger posting my picture and name over and over without permission and with the Reverend now trying to look me up for some reason...  

Perhaps now is a good time to stop the madness. 

I enjoy posting and even commenting (although I comment less frequently). Been doing it for close to two decades now.

But the personal (as in actual personal) attacks are becoming far more frequent and the idea that somehow I am everyone's dad here responsible to keep peace is making this not so much fun. You choose to comment here. You choose to provide your personal information. I do not "own" the blog and have been quite clear that I am not a moderator or publisher. 

What gets put in the comments is not my responsibility. 

But this is just how the world is today, right? Nothing can just be what it is or just be fun anymore. Someone always has to make a big fucking deal out of everything and someone always has to be offended and upset. This is a political blog with open commenting. What the fuck do you expect? 

Meanwhile... 

I still get double digit emails from Roger every week calling me names, telling me "I" need medical help, getting over the top upset over Trump, demanding I click on some link that he feels I need to read. Oh and that is just emails. He tags me every other day on Twitter as well and DMs me frequently as well. I still have not unbanned him from FB - where he used messenger to ping me at all times of the day and night. Really don't give a shit what he says about me, but the constant emails and twitter crap just gets old. 

But in spite of that... I even offered to let him start to comment again if he would simply stop spamming every thread with the same hate about the bad orange man. I want to be inclusive to a degree and thought maybe it would ease up on the personal crap. You see his reaction. Apparently Trump is still in control... of Roger. 

I think the final straw is Roger and Reverend corresponding about my personal information. Unlike Roger and "James" - I do not provide any more personal information than you see and I do not take well to people trying to look into my personal life. It is simply intrusive, rude, and a slew of other things. Again. I am not your fucking dad. 

Either way... I have had it. I will toss out some open mics and Sunday funnies... but my personal engagement is going to be limited. I need a break. 

Kayne West suspended from Twitter for posting Star of David with Swastika inside it...

Nobody sure if it is temporary or permanent 

former wife Kim Kardashian had no comment

At this time it certainly seems like Kayne was looking to cause trouble and from what everyone can see Kayne and Elon got into it personally before Elon made the decision to suspend the former rapper. Nobody is sure what is up with Kayne, other than he is suffering right now with some sort of mood disorder or mental illness. But he is losing friends and reputation as time goes on. 

Being a Nazi is not cool in 2022. If he switched the look just a little, he could join Antifa at which point the left would see him as a hero again! That would be my advice to the man, shortly after he got mental health help. 

So China interfered in the 2022 election...

But yawn and meh.... they were pushing Democrats so that is okay!

Forbes discovered TikTok accounts controlled by Chinese state media that accumulated tens of millions of views before the midterm elections, on videos that often criticized specific politicians and sought to undermine trust in American institutions. https://t.co/FfwKVK9e2W pic.twitter.com/94RUNMkZvb

— Forbes (@Forbes) December 1, 2022

To be clear, it is literally impossible for Russia to have ever interfered in the manner that China can based on the fact that Russia does not own something like TikTok. They barely own a clock that goes tick and tock, much less the seventh largest social media application in the world. 

But you will not find anyone interested in undermining Chinese interference or demanding that the 2022 election was "stolen" because of foreign interference. Reality here folks. International interference is here to stay and there is nothing we can do about it. Well except complain that the Russians did it (even when our two plus years of investigating didn't actually prove anything).

But somehow a platform like Twitter (about half the size of TikTok) is on the radar of our politicians. Not because there is ANY proof of Twitter pushing disinformation, but because it is not willing to simply push the liberal narrative ahead of everything else.

So two Oathkeepers conspired and almost took down the entire US Government double-handedly!

Stealing a term from Sharon Stone - believing this takes a willing suspension of disbelief! 

The one question and the one scenario that nobody has ever explained... how is it that these people were actually going to overthrow the Government? Is stealing Pelosi's podium akin to pulling Excalibur out of the rock? Are we to believe that this would provide divine power to rule? Were they going to hold the Capital building by force and then guard it with flagpoles, bicycle helmets, and bear spray... believing that they now run the country because Congress could not use the hall? That somehow our entire government infrastructure from top to bottom would throw up their arms and exclaim that the country is now run by a few dozen rag-tag protesters. 

What possible reasonable explanation is there where we get from people wandering through the capital and those same people somehow becoming the defacto leaders of the entire nation in doing so? I don't believe anyone has answered that question to any degree. In fact, nobody even really tries.

RIP Christine McVie

One of the great artists from one of the greatest bands

Fleetwood Mac had something that very few bands really had and almost no bands have anymore. That is the versatility and courage to use multiple lead singers. In Fleetwood Mac's case, Stevie Nicks was probably considered the star, but songs sung by McVie (such as in the video) and Lindsey Buckingham brought much to their repertoire.

Many great bands (Beatles, Who, Eagles) used a variety of singers, but Fleetwood Mac was special for using both male and female vocalists. Another classic musical artist is dead. I feel old! 

Apple for China!

China aligns with Apple's values? You still want an I-Phone?

Flashback!@Apple’s @tim_cook in 2017: “China has done an unbelievable job of lifting people out of poverty … far beyond what any country has done... we should all applaud that … And the environmental leadership today, is very clear & it aligns completely with Apple's values” pic.twitter.com/F1TW9PLVjU

— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) November 30, 2022

Why do we still not have a result in CA13 three weeks after the election?

What could we possibly be waiting for? Mindboggling!

• All the ballots should be there
• There is no mail that takes three weeks to arrive
• They appear to have about 5000 ballots to count
• They have had 5000 ballots to count for about a week

How is this for hubris?

The weird sorrow of losing Twitter 

Grieving a loss, when the loss is the hell-bird site you weren’t supposed to love.

On the evening of November 17, news reports swept across Twitter that the platform had lost so many employees it likely no longer had the people behind it to keep its most vital services running. To commemorate the occasion — not unlike violins on the Titanic — longtime internet culture reporters Katie Notopoulos and Ryan Broderick hosted a massive Twitter space to discuss the demise of the service.

At publish time, Twitter had yet to splutter to a stop, and it’s not a given that it will shut down. Still, the changes made by new owner Elon Musk — both structural (like firing thousands of employees) and cultural (like breaking the verification system, reinstating banned users, and reinstating former President Donald Trump) — have contributed to a feeling that something has fundamentally changed.

So here is the reality folks... Twitter has not gone away. There has been no disruption of services and there is little to no chance that there will be. The man who literally owns a private company that is beating NASA at space travel is not going to purchase a "website" and not be able to figure out how to keep it up and running. 

The reason (the sole reason) that many of these people (claim) to be leaving Twitter is not because they cannot be on Twitter, but literally because Musk is allowing people they do not like to also be on Twitter.  They object to the people who "used" to be on Twitter before they were banned for things like being conservative, criticizing liberals, or (gasp) providing facts that did not conform. 

Apparently if the left cannot control the entire website, then they do not want anything to do with it. It makes you wonder exactly how self absorbed and entitled these crybaby liberals really are? Do they really believe that their personal feelings cannot be disrupted by something like "free speech" and that the rest of the world should acknowledge and bow to this thinking?

Well.. yeah? Apparently this is exactly what they think.

Moreover, they apparently believe that the woke liberal employees are the only ones capable of running Twitter and that a non-liberal like Musk is not smart enough to figure it out. They cite the firing and quitting of "thousands" as proof positive that Twitter will fail. Really? If Must cut the Twitter payroll by 2/3 and the website is still up and running, that is not an indictment of Musk, but an indictment of the previous CEO Parag Agrawal and his mismanagement of the public company.

The previous Twitter (the ones that liberals are pining for and mourning) was one that was run by a group of people (led by Agrawal) who literally suggested that they had no interest in being a real public forum and that they had no real interest in making money? They actually believed that it was okay to reshape Twitter as a liberal echo chamber for liberals to enjoy all the while driving the stock prices down to the point where Twitter was literally worth half as it was worth back when Dorsey ran it. 

And the saddest part? They felt entitled to do so. You have to wonder why? 

Does Apple really want to mess with Elon?

Apple Threatens to Remove Twitter From Its App Store, Sets up Major Battle

Apple has also threatened to withhold Twitter from its App Store, but won’t tell us why

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) November 28, 2022

The problem here for Apple is that Musk would have a very straight forward lawsuit which would not have anything to do with liberal popular opinion or liberal rhetoric. Apple (unlike advertisers) would have to actually have a reason to remove an application (that currently exists) from their phone. Just not wanting it (or banning it for political reasons is not a good enough reason). Many legal analysts have suggested that Musk would have good standing and Apple would have very little in response. 

If the Twitter app became so unpopular that nobody was downloading it or using it then Apple would have real business reasons. If there was literally dangerous activity on Twitter that did not previously exist (dangerous as in something illegal - not something un-woke) then they would have just cause. But simply because they do not like Elon Musk or how he is running Twitter? 

Moreover, Elon could possibly just decide to start an alternate phone company (or perhaps buy up and existing one) and compete head to head with Apple. I could tell you that there are plenty of conservatives I know who still have Apple products who would make a different decision when they upgrade their next phone or computer (which happens now way more often). 

Vindman gets into argument with Elon Musk over this odd bot situation

Vindman posts a statement and almost immediately obvious bots are repeating the same statement word for word? Then he demand that Musk is attacking "him" and suggests that history will see him (Vindman) as the more important of the two men.

Now I am going to start by wondering out loud why Vindman has a blue checkmark. He was a witness in an impeachment hearing and a former military person. The only thing he really had going for him was that he was an anti-Trump nut and full fledged liberal nutjob. Of course that sort of thing mattered at the old twitter. So I guess that is what got him the blue checkmark (will he pay the $8.00 to keep it)?

But how is this for Hubris? Vindman actually believes that "history" will remember him over Elon Musk? Seriously? History is unlikely to remember Alexander Vindman at all, much less compare him favorably to Elon Musk.

The sooner these sort of echo chamber bots are eliminated from Twitter the better. Let's see how popular Vindman is without a bot following and without moderation and without the Twitter gods tilting the playing field in liberal favor. 

This is similar to Monica Lewinsky who was upset the other day when a poll post didn't go the way she expected. According to her own poll 90% of the respondents felt that twitter users rather than twitter management should be making decisions for the company. She also was upset that she had 9000 comments (most of which were critical) versus only 4000 likes, blaming the new formulas for the negativity. 

But isn't this the way it works in the mind of a liberal. They want the likes without the criticism and they want some group of people to protect them from anyone who disagrees with them. That way, apparently, they can live in this bubble and believe that everyone agrees with everything they say and that those who do not are out there on the fringe. It is not "reality" - but it is has become "their reality" with the help of censorship and management favoritism of one opinion over others. 

Some facts about Australia gun laws...

Did all gun owners turn in their guns and are Australians all protecting themselves with giant knives like Crocodile Dundee?

The "what about Australia" argument seems to be built on lies

To be clear the 1996 gun law did not take all guns away from Australians and Australians did not (as some suggest) universally give away all of their guns:

During the buyback program, Australians sold 640,000 prohibited firearms to the government, and voluntarily surrendered about 60,000 non-prohibited firearms. In all, more than 700,000 weapons were surrendered, according to a Library of Congress report on Australian gun policy. One study says that the program reduced the number of guns in private hands by 20 percent. 

So this would suggest that 80% of Australians held on to their guns. The laws in Australia are also determined by the states, with the Federal Government banning certain types of automatic assault guns and requiring more licensing back in their signature 1996 law. Gun ownership has decreased, but there are still approximately 3.5 million guns in Australia. They just require that people license and jump through a few more hoops to get them. 

As critics suggested, homicides actually increased a bit in the specific aftermath of the law before leveling off. There doesn't seem to be a direct correlation between the various gun laws and when Australian murders went down.

Moreover, there are simply not very many homicides in Australia to speak of. You are looking at less than one homicide a day versus approximately 60 specific "gun murders" a day in the United States. That is one murder a day for the 26 million Australians versus 60 for 330 million Americans. Do the math! There really never has been and there still is not any real comparison. 

So here is the question I have for liberals using Australia as an example? There is no evidence that the gun laws have actually worked to reduce overall homicides anymore than homicides were reduced in many places over that same time period (without gun laws). The idea that they simply turned in all of their firearms and live in a gun-less society is a lie. 

Why is "what about Australia" any sort of argument to not actually punish our criminals here in the United States? Why is "what about Australia" any sort of logical reason to blame honest law abiding gun owners for the crimes of others?  Anyone have a good answer here? 

Probably not... but it won't stop them from using it. Because there really are no good arguments.