2009-5-14 05:31:00
[Compiler's Note: The "Local Posts" series of articles found here in "The Archives" are a collection of exchanges between JJ Dewey and others participating on a local online newspaper blog, and were subsequently re-posted by JJ Dewey on The Keys Of Knowledge discussion group. Because of the length of the original post, the archived version of this post was broken up into multiple parts. This is Part Three. Links to the remaining parts can be found at the end of this article.]
JJ:
Good assortment of letters today. The first one very closely represents my sentiments. I also liked the quote from Dr. Rogers.
I take issue with Mr. Pauls in that he seems to think the President is responsible for all spending. As Mr. Shumaker said spending must originate in the house. The Democratic House pushed for a lot of spending under Reagan and the Republican House pushed for Welfare reform and spending cuts taken credit for by Clinton. Both houses supported Bush's social spending. The main complaint from Democrats was that he did not spend enough, on one hand, while complaining of overspending on the other.
When there is overspending we need to blame all three branches of government that do not resist kicking and screaming.
I have a beef with the fanatical Left here too cowardly to show themselves.
For some time now I have noticed that many of my posts were under review by the Statesman. I wrote them a letter and asked what that was about and did not receive a response.
Then after this kept happening I became more perplexed. Finally, after the "tea party" I noticed that I had a half dozen posts on this one subject under review. I read them over and could not see anything objectionable in them. There were about 170 comments that day and a number under review so I checked through all of them and discovered that the only ones under review were posts from the Right.
Then I went through other past postings and discovered the same. Why were only conservatives under review?
Fortunately, another reader enlightened me. This happens automatically when a reader checks the "abuse" button.
This means that mean-spirited fanatical liberals are trying to silence conservatives by mindlessly checking their posts as abusive. Do they want us to respond in kind? I don't think so.
"Boiseriver" wrote:
"Why is it that over 60% of Americans believe in the course of action selected by our president?"
JJ:
And why was it that 69% approved the course of action by Bush to start the war in Iraq? That means you think Bush was on target, right?
Democrat Scott Rasmussen, who surveyed has Obama's job approval at 53 percent-and has about a third of those (36 percent) saying they "strongly approve" of the way he is performing his job as president.
Why is the approval gap for Obama 10 points lower than Bush had?
Why are his poll numbers no better than Bush who was handicapped by a contested election?
"BR":
"One of the more interesting aspects is that many people in the working class support the propaganda of the wealthy despite being victims of class warfare created by the wealthy."
JJ:
I've been a working class small businessman all my life and have no beef with the wealthy. My beef is with those who tax and spend us into oblivion. That affects us all.
"Brt" writes:
"Scott Rasmussen is no more Democrat than you, Joseph. He is a self-admitted Christian Evangelist - and supports many Conservative causes. Why do you think Republicans love his polls?"
JJ:
Scott is a Methodist and most of them are fairly middle of the road or liberal in their religious beliefs.
I heard him identified in an interview that he was a Democrat and he nodded his head.
What? You think if someone is religious they cannot be a Democrat? That's not saying much for your own party.
About a quarter of evangelicals are Democrats.
A few years ago Zogby was the darling of the right. Rush was praising his polls like crazy and ignoring Rasmussen. A lot of people thought that Zogby had to be a card carrying Republican, but he is a strong Democrat.
It's amazing how the Left always want to shoot or disqualify the messenger rather than examine the message.
JJ:
Stating that "90 percent of all high-quality firearms used by Mexican drug cartels come from the United States" gives a distorted picture. Instead only 17 percent of guns found at Mexican crime scenes have been traced to the U.S.
For the full story go to:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2009/04/02/myth-percent-guns-mexico-fraction-number-claimed/
I can hear the Left now: "Oh no, he cited that evil Fox News - everyone shut down your minds and close your ears."
JJ:
Good letter Mr. Bolton. An ever-increasing number of people are starting to look at the facts of global warming and discover that they have been deceived.
Here are a few facts for the rational mind.
The earth went through a global warming period from 1850 to 1940. Then as WW2 got under way and we really started spewing carbon dioxide into the air we entered a cooling cycle until 1976. Just before this change many scientists were fearing an ice age.
The earth then warmed until 1998 which was warmer than 2008.
For 3 million of the last 6 million years the earth was warmer than it is now.
Polar ice has only been present for 20% of geological time.
The UN IPCC global warming report changes up to 50% in each of its forecasts. How scientific is that?
Al Gore is so ill informed he will not debate anyone on global warming.
The "cap and trade" plan presented by Obama will greatly damage the economy and have negligible effect on global warming.
"Boiseriver" wrote:
"Over 60% don't believe in evolution and we continue to see the equivalent of Holocaust deniers trashing the evidence on global warming."
JJ:
And what evidence is that?
Notice that when the Left disagrees with me they rarely use facts and reason, but all they can drudge up is insults.
First of all the man-made global warming believers are the ones who are the scientific equivalent of the 6000 year old earth believers. Anyone with a mind who has studied it and is not on an ideological payroll has to admit that we are being fed a lot of hype and disinformation.
For what reason?
Follow the money and power.
It gives powerful people a chance to control evil capitalists and instigate new suffocating taxes -- such as Obama is proposing for the oil industry.
Did you know that carbon dioxide (CO2) is a fertilizer and makes for a greener more flourishing planet? It may also delay the coming ice age which is cyclically overdue.
"TWall" wrote:
"I've used facts with you before but you always have some reason why they don't prove anything."
JJ:
Facts alone prove little unless they are pertinent to the argument. For instance, it may be a fact that it is 70 degrees outside, but that proves neither global warming or cooling. The fact must relate to the argument.
"Grandjester":
"'Follow the money and power.' Que Bono? Who benefits? Who benefits from Global climate change denial? Who finances ALL of the major "science" that provides the cover for denial?"
JJ:
We all benefit when real truth is revealed.
It is interesting that whenever the Left sees data they have a mindset against accepting they seek to discredit the messenger rather than examining the truth revealed.
The oil companies have contributed a small amount to research but most of the books written on the subject are written by independent people acting on their own. People like me for instance. My next book will have a section on global warming.
When we follow the money we discover that the U.S. government has been spending over $4 billion a year on global warming research, which makes the oil companies look like Tiny Tim. Scientists who appear skeptical are either dismissed or lose funding.
"Grandjester" wrote:
"The general answer is the energy industry and more specifically Exxon Mobil. And the millions they spend every year on junk science and lobbyist BS is astounding, 14.5 Mill in 2006, that we know of."
JJ:
Oh, wow. The oil companies spent a few pennies to present another point of view. And this is bad because?
Because the Left doesn't want to hear another point of view.
Our government spent $4 billion a year, not in the quest for truth, but to establish that there is man made global warming. And this does not include the money dozens of other nations are spending to prove preconceived notions. The U.S. investment is 275 times the amount Exxon Mobile spent according to your figures.
Most of the books I read on the subject begin with a disclaimer that the author received no funds from oil companies. This is because the oil investment is a knee jerk defense of the global warming alarmists.
"Create a definite plan for carrying out your desire and begin at once, whether you are ready or not, to put this plan into action."
-- Napoleon Hill
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved