Predictions for 2007
I was right on several of my predictions for 2006; namely 1, 2, 3, 8, and 10. I have no way to verify 7 and I was wrong on 4 and 9; well half-wrong on 9 I guess and half-right on 1 depending on how one looks at it. Numbers 5 and 6 can be counted as correct but they hold true for any year and are not unique to 2006.
I am not going to do another predictions list for 2007. With Democrats in control of Congress, it will be too hard to predict. I do know that US companies will not stop sending jobs overseas, there will still be poor people, terrorists will continue to hate us, and that Bush will still be blamed for things like natural disasters and using his Langan-esque IQ to manipulate the world petroleum market. While the latter is unique to the post-2000 election, the former have proven to hold true no matter which party controls Congress or is in the White House.
posted by bwsnyder @ 23:17
6 comments
6 Comments:
"I'm coming up with 32.33---repeating of course---percentage of survival."
"...ah, that's a lot better than we usually do, uh---"
"ALRIGHT, GUNS UP, LET'S DO THIS: LEEEEEROOOOOOOYYYYYY ngg'JENKIIIINS!!!!!1111!!!!111"
I wonder if lightning hates us more than terrorists.
It's (much) more likely to kill us at any rate.
I wonder if lightning hates us more than terrorists.It's (much) more likely to kill us at any rate.
I know this is true but terrorist attacks cause panic and mayhem. Lightning strikes do not. Does this mean you're admitting we are safe? Democrat talking points in the elections of '04 and '06 told us that we were not safer than we were before Jan. 20, 2001.
I know this is true but terrorist attacks cause panic and mayhem. Lightning strikes do not. Does this mean you're admitting we are safe? Democrat talking points in the elections of '04 and '06 told us that we were not safer than we were before Jan. 20, 2001.
I don't care what the Democrats have to say about this.
If terror attacks cause panic and mayhem, then the terrorists win. When terrorism began in ancient Judea (the Middle East, of all places), the nationalist rebels would wear the plain loose clothing that was and is so common to the Mediterranean, sneak up on groups of Roman soldiers standing guard in the streets, then draw sicae (daggers) from the folds of their garb, and stab them all in the back before rapidly dispersing into the anonymity of the crowds.
The actual chances of dying in such an attack as opposed to---for instance disease or regular-ass combat---were probably quite low. If I were in charge of these watchmen, I would certainly do things to make such attacks less likely to succeed. What exactly, I can't say---I don't have enough context to be sure what would be done---but I know for sure that blindly and bluntly laying the smack down really only made it worse for the Romans in retrospect.
On second thought, I would appeal to higher national authorities to fund, train, and equip enemies of the people of Rome, such as the Visigoths, Gauls, and Zionists---and even commission a mural of Hadrian shaking hands with a major chieftain of the Dacians---then encourage the citizens of Rome to write prolifically about the threat the enemies we helped rise to power pose (as opposed to the more inconvenient prospect of enlistment in the military).
President Bush does not manipulate the oil market.
That's the job of the Saudi oil companies and royal family, whom Dubya usually addresses as 'sir'.
Post a Comment
<< Home