'Crooks & Liars.com' posted this-- "Morganelli is not a Democrat. He has demonstrated that his values and policies align with Trump and fellow Republicans. Should Pennsylvania Democrats vote for him in the primary, they will be electing a wolf in sheep's clothing to represent them."
I'm posting this link w/o comment. I'll leave it up to voters after reading the article to decide for themselves.
A Blog About Anything & Everything.
Thursday, March 15, 2018
Saturday, March 10, 2018
Universe A Hologram?
This is the kind of stuff that blows my mind. This theory would explain a few things.
(1) If we wanted to find the center of the universe you'd think all we'd have to do it trace back to where the big bang occurred. In defiance of logic the center of the universe doesn't exist. THIS VIDEO explains why. People assume matter was ejected from an explosion into space. However this was not so because space itself hadn't existed. Both are one and the same therefore there can be no before or after since time didn't yet exist. Further proof is everywhere we look (in any direction) the same density of galaxies exist. Since there is no greater density in one direction then the other it's not possible to trace back to find a greater or lesser number indicating a center..
(2) Which brings me back to finding we just might be living on the cusp of a black hole's event horizon. If this is so we are nothing but a recording of all that exist outside of where we exist. Think about it. (a) Every star system is of equal density outside our surroundings. (b) The universe appears nearly frozen in time from our vantage point. (c) We've observed no other beings. Wouldn't this be so if we were little more then existing frozen in time to the outside universe.
Here's Another Theory I've Always Held
We've been told the universe only existed 13.5 billion light years across since the so-called big bang. I always disputed that. THIS VIDEO seems to support my hypothesis that we have no idea how old it really is. The video explains some galaxies are moving away faster then the speed of light-- meaning their photons (limited to the speed of light) will never get here. Thus there could be an infinite number of galaxies beyond 13.5 billion light years. We just can't see them.
Wait you say, "I thought nothing could move beyond the speed of light?" I would respond by stating it would be more correct to state "we can observe nothing beyond the speed of light". That being so doesn't rule out the possibility of it being possible elsewhere. Time's existence can be said to be limited by how it's measured within one's locale. This possibility of living on an event horizon of a black hole would mean all bets would be off. To someone outside a black hole it would appear we're frozen in time. To us living here it most certainly would not.
Yes indeed time is a tricky thing. We measure time as a series of relationships. Certainly those experiences would be far different within a black hole opposed to outside of one. Therefore time becomes rather meaningless when we talk of such things. In fact quantum physics says objects can be several places at the same "time". It's only when we observe one object the others disappear. So it may very well be we are living frozen on the fringe of a black hole where all can exist at the same "time". Just as it may be also likely our universe extends far beyond anything we could imagine. Not limited to just 13.5 billion light years.
There is a quote in the bible book of Daniel which gives us a clue about this time thing. Where it says one day with God is as of a thousand years of men. If you do the math it equates to nearly the speed of light. The bible speaks to God as a being of light. I'm fairly certain they were speaking of God The Creator. Question then becomes what is the essence of God himself eternal beyond creation (of time and matter)?
Tuesday, March 6, 2018
We The People In Order To Form A More Perfect Union
Should outlaw and abolish all political parties.
I'm of the mind the only reason the two major parties still exist is for the benefit of people too stupid and lazy to understand who/what they're voting for. Just imagine the panic on voters faces if they picked candidates not knowing to which party they belonged. Heaven forbid if voters actually had do a little research on their own instead of religiously voting for the big 'R" or 'D". Ever see those prank street interviews where people didn't have a clue which candidate said what?
As I scroll through the countless comments the majority lump every politician as if they were fighting the civil war. Either their favored candidate is wearing a red hat or blue hat allowing for nothing in-between. I'd be certain more then a few would be surprised to find out some Republicans actually favor DACA and strengthening Social Security. They might equally be surprised to learn over 15 Democrats right now are cosponsoring legislation in favor of deregulating wall street banks. So too liberals in the Senate joined the Republicans passing one of the largest defense spending measures ever for 2019 The vote count was 89 to 8. Just because someone votes for a Republican or Democrat doesn't mean they are going to get what they're expecting. So too some so-called Republicans and Democrats are so far off the charts with their wacky ideas they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a member of either party.
The second part of this consideration for elimination are the legislators themselves. Many of them hold their nose forced to vote for things their party says they have to. Even those bills they don't agree with.
The third consideration is election fairness. Think about the pointlessness of gerrymandering if partisanship no longer existed. Face it voters are getting screwed when grouped together in certain voting districts just to swing the electoral counts in favor of one party or another. This doesn't serve voters well in what we like to think as being a honest democracy.
Far as I'm concerned political parties are an obstacle to a greater democracy. Not an enhancement to it. Either major party can be bought off by big donors. Without central party headquarters it would be much harder for these donors to single out each candidate in every district. Currently the political parties act as a conduit making it easier for the high rollers to target where their money goes for them. Ideally we should end this practice by eliminating these two major parties. These two are the reasons why we're seeing so much divisiveness.
Some will argue people can make the change by voting for 3rd party candidates. Hate to break the news. Check the historical records. It ain't never going to happen that way. Course neither is the elimination of political parties considering it would take members themselves from both parties to agree to it. Yeah that's likely to happen only when the sun goes out and Earth goes extinct. Hey, I didn't say it "could happen". I only said it "should happen".
Warning: Strong Language
Well as long as I'm "Wishing For Fishes"....
Rick Springfield (2015)
I'm of the mind the only reason the two major parties still exist is for the benefit of people too stupid and lazy to understand who/what they're voting for. Just imagine the panic on voters faces if they picked candidates not knowing to which party they belonged. Heaven forbid if voters actually had do a little research on their own instead of religiously voting for the big 'R" or 'D". Ever see those prank street interviews where people didn't have a clue which candidate said what?
As I scroll through the countless comments the majority lump every politician as if they were fighting the civil war. Either their favored candidate is wearing a red hat or blue hat allowing for nothing in-between. I'd be certain more then a few would be surprised to find out some Republicans actually favor DACA and strengthening Social Security. They might equally be surprised to learn over 15 Democrats right now are cosponsoring legislation in favor of deregulating wall street banks. So too liberals in the Senate joined the Republicans passing one of the largest defense spending measures ever for 2019 The vote count was 89 to 8. Just because someone votes for a Republican or Democrat doesn't mean they are going to get what they're expecting. So too some so-called Republicans and Democrats are so far off the charts with their wacky ideas they shouldn't be allowed to call themselves a member of either party.
The second part of this consideration for elimination are the legislators themselves. Many of them hold their nose forced to vote for things their party says they have to. Even those bills they don't agree with.
The third consideration is election fairness. Think about the pointlessness of gerrymandering if partisanship no longer existed. Face it voters are getting screwed when grouped together in certain voting districts just to swing the electoral counts in favor of one party or another. This doesn't serve voters well in what we like to think as being a honest democracy.
Far as I'm concerned political parties are an obstacle to a greater democracy. Not an enhancement to it. Either major party can be bought off by big donors. Without central party headquarters it would be much harder for these donors to single out each candidate in every district. Currently the political parties act as a conduit making it easier for the high rollers to target where their money goes for them. Ideally we should end this practice by eliminating these two major parties. These two are the reasons why we're seeing so much divisiveness.
Some will argue people can make the change by voting for 3rd party candidates. Hate to break the news. Check the historical records. It ain't never going to happen that way. Course neither is the elimination of political parties considering it would take members themselves from both parties to agree to it. Yeah that's likely to happen only when the sun goes out and Earth goes extinct. Hey, I didn't say it "could happen". I only said it "should happen".
Well as long as I'm "Wishing For Fishes"....
Rick Springfield (2015)
Sunday, March 4, 2018
Musical Number From NBC's 2012 Pregame Super Bowl Show
How many shows can you name each were on?
Friday, March 2, 2018
Allentown City Council Addresses Pawlowski Bullying
Video Courtesy Of "Lehigh Valley Caffeinated"
When I sometimes begin to feel empathy towards the mayor's woes it's things like these that make me understand why he deserves none. Thanks to the 'LV Caffeinated' group for recording this.
Things Said In Trial Courts (Humor)
From a book called "Disorder In The Court"- by Charles M. Sevilla (Published In 1992)
Here are a few excerpts from the book of things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters. Check out the book. There's plenty more.
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's 20, very close to your IQ.
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
ATTORNEY: ALL of your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you attend?
WITNESS: Oral.
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PM.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
Here are a few excerpts from the book of things people actually said in court, word for word, taken down and published by court reporters. Check out the book. There's plenty more.
ATTORNEY: What gear were you in at the moment of the impact?
WITNESS: Gucci sweats and Reeboks.
ATTORNEY: Are you sexually active?
WITNESS: No, I just lie there.
ATTORNEY: What is your date of birth?
WITNESS: July 18th.
ATTORNEY: What year?
WITNESS: Every year.
ATTORNEY: How old is your son, the one living with you?
WITNESS: Thirty-eight or thirty-five, I can't remember which.
ATTORNEY: How long has he lived with you?
WITNESS: Forty-five years.
ATTORNEY: Now doctor, isn't it true that when a person dies in his sleep, he doesn't know about it until the next morning?
WITNESS: Did you actually pass the bar exam?
ATTORNEY: The youngest son, the 20-year-old, how old is he?
WITNESS: He's 20, very close to your IQ.
ATTORNEY: Were you present when your picture was taken?
WITNESS: Are you shitting me?
ATTORNEY: So the date of conception (of the baby) was August 8th?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: And what were you doing at that time?
WITNESS: Getting laid
ATTORNEY: She had three children, right?
WITNESS: Yes.
ATTORNEY: How many were boys?
WITNESS: None.
ATTORNEY: Were there any girls?
WITNESS: Your Honor, I need a different attorney. Can I get a new attorney?
ATTORNEY: How was your first marriage terminated?
WITNESS: By death.
ATTORNEY: And by whose death was it terminated?
WITNESS: Take a guess.
ATTORNEY: Can you describe the individual?
WITNESS: He was about medium height and had a beard.
ATTORNEY: Was this a male or a female?
WITNESS: Unless the Circus was in town I'm going with male.
ATTORNEY: Is your appearance here this morning pursuant to a deposition notice which I sent to your attorney?
WITNESS: No, this is how I dress when I go to work.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, how many of your autopsies have you performed on dead people?
WITNESS: All of them. The live ones put up too much of a fight.
ATTORNEY: ALL of your responses MUST be oral, OK? What school did you attend?
WITNESS: Oral.
ATTORNEY: Do you recall the time that you examined the body?
WITNESS: The autopsy started around 8:30 PM.
ATTORNEY: And Mr. Denton was dead at the time?
WITNESS: If not, he was by the time I finished.
ATTORNEY: Doctor, before you performed the autopsy, did you check for a pulse?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for blood pressure?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: Did you check for breathing?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: So, then it is possible that the patient was alive when you began the autopsy?
WITNESS: No.
ATTORNEY: How can you be so sure, Doctor?
WITNESS: Because his brain was sitting on my desk in a jar.
ATTORNEY: I see, but could the patient have still been alive, nevertheless?
WITNESS: Yes, it is possible that he could have been alive and practicing law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)