I Searched For Nancy Pelosi News

 

Here's this quote from searching for Nancy Pelosi on duckduckgo news:


Pelosi said she's "concerned about the next time" there's a shutdown vote later this year, but added, "What happened last week was last week. We're going into the future." She also noted that she still supports Schumer.



We're going into the future.

We're going into oil futures.


Using my WTD code, that's, thesoil, he lost i, i stole h, lo heist, holiest, hostile.


And:  e , hi , lo , st


AFIC


PIC?  Air Force IC?


Maybe she doesn't mean anything by it.  Or, it could be bait to get the woman at the doctor's office to approach me.  That's my guess...the doctor's office lady is another bad guy who is trying to bait me into having some sort of bad reaction to Nancy Pelosi, so that I will offend average people and somehow become unfortunate.  I think the woman who showed up was a bad guy.


At the same time...my comment that it's the JDR in particular that's messed up does haunt me a little.  Are they doing this to children, too?  I could totally see Judge Lee and Mr. Kaufman trying to do the same sort of thing to a child who has been accused of a crime that he/she didn't commit, and if the parent doesn't have the $$ to pay for an attorney, the kid could be trafficked.


Maybe it's not mainly the JDR.  Maybe it's mainly the whole law enforcement group in Henrico.


I bet the FBI or the CIA just asked Nancy Pelosi to say something about "going into the future" to try to bait the bad guys into using the Pelosi news story to try to bait me into getting paranoid and angry.


I'm not going to get that angry...I said, I've been to anger management therapy.  It is scientific.  The results are not unpredictable.  I am truly, genuinely, only rarely angry any more.  Believe it.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Math Update: My P != NP Proof Might Be Correct!!!!! -- (update, no it's not, see the note at the beginning and the updates near the bottom)

EDIT:  No, this proof is not correct.  See the updates at the bottom for details on why (based on Dr. Zelinsky's comment).  Fortunately, my GLL proof and MSR proofs still appear to be correct. It could be that Joshua Zelinsky's comment actually helps me to complete the proof. The GLL proof appears to be correct, AFAIK. The thing is, the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent --> P != NP" within PA and the fact that we can prove "PA is consistent" as a theorem of ZFC just shows that P != NP is a theorem of PA.  That isn't a contradiction, it's just another step in the proof. I think the striking idea is, P != NP is a theorem of PA, but not of ZFC.  That is what I worked to prove.  AFAIK it is possible for a proposition to be a theorem of PA but not of ZFC.  In particular, PA can be proved consistent from ZFC, so we would think it s possible and even likely that there are some non-theorems of ZFC that are theorems of PA. So this is great!  It l...
Read more

Hello, Texas - A Quick Monopoly Lesson

  So today, I thought I saw some people running around blurting code gestures at me.  One of the codes seemed to say, "Riot for a[buse] v[ictim] time -M".  Oh, M?  M as in Monolith, or M as in Monopoly fan who doesn't get it? Here, Houstonian code-talkers...let me teach you how to play Monopoly, since you are so hungry for free knowledge:  - Make deals with other players that benefit you.  - Offer deals to difficult players that are somewhat beneficial to them, knowing that they might reject.  - Watch which deals other players reject, and identify what *deal types* they are not likely to accept from you or anyone else.  - Be very very careful about your own deals--and behavior--lest you get figured out by your opponents and backed into a corner, with good, beneficial deals being made without you by cunning adversaries who know your every move. There's a poker lesson in there, too, but I don't want to get too educational right now.
Read more

Flash Non-Fiction: James Bond and Masculinity

  This was going to be a longer essay, but I decided to just blurt out my point rather than trying to write well. Basically, I think James Bond movies are good, and the songs are high-quality too, but it sends semi-dangerous messages to men in particular about what it means to be a man.  The Bond character is intransigent, aggressive, violent, and absolutely sure of himself in all cases.  He is portrayed as a big winner--able to date and have sex with beautiful women, almost impossible to kill, and lethal and elite at both armed and unarmed combat. I'm concerned that some men, including my estranged father ASW, have had their sense of morality warped by Bond movies.  They think that this dramatically presented way to be masculine is the only way.  I think that's unhealthy, and when people get the not-so-original idea to "try to be more Bond-like" in their personal lives, that leads to catastrophic conflicts with and major potential for deep pain for people that ...
Read more