Local Posts #18
Mon May 25, 2009 (7:03 am)
[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.]
May 5, 2009 -- Post #1
JJ:
It is amazing how many people fall for everything Congress puts
forward that sounds good on the surface. Unfortunately the media is
not doing its job and reporting both sides of various proposals so
its up to us citizens to do our own digging.
HR 1388 (Obama's plan for a volunteer corps) is another big spending
bill that gives Big Brother more power to indoctrinate and control
our youth, veterans, and seniors.
For one of the few places you can find the potential downside of this
bill go to:
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=92288
Once you find out some details you'll realize that Crapo and Risch
are not so "un-American" as Artley rudely insinuates.
May 5, 2009 -- Post #2
JJ:
From the text of HR 1388 at:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-1388
"Special Consideration -- To the extent practicable, in making grants
and entering into contracts [...] including, institutions serving
primarily low-income populations, including --
"(1) Alaska Native-serving institutions;
"(2) Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions;
"(3) Hispanic-serving institutions;
"(4) Historically black colleges and universities;
"(5) Native American-serving, nontribal institutions;
"(6) Native Hawaiian-serving institutions;
"(7) Predominantly Black Institutions;
"(8) Tribally controlled colleges and universities; and
"(9) Community colleges serving predominantly minority populations."
There will be a "special consideration" for grants to these
minorities to create Obama's army of volunteers.
What do they have in common?
They are Democrat voters and easily subject to the influence and
mobilization for Obama and the Democrat party. Republicans and
Libertarians are paying for their own demise.
May 6, 2009 -- Post #1
JJ:
Mr. Hall says, "the possibility of the biblical God existing is nil."
Maybe the possibility is that we do not understand what God or Divine
Intelligence even is.
If the Bible stories are true then there is definitely some powerful
Dude or Power that can part the Red Sea and raise the dead back to
life. Some cruel things attributed to God could be decisions of mere
mortals who say they came from God.
Consider this. The sun is a million times larger than earth. There
are two hundred billion star systems in this galaxy. There are
billions of galaxies that we can see and billions more we cannot. As
a speck of dust is to the earth, even so is our planet in relation to
the universe.
Maybe we are not that important to the Life who created all there is,
but are of importance to other beings who are powerful enough to part
the Red Sea. Look how much we have advanced in 100 years. Imagine
what others lives have done in a thousand million or a billion years.
May 6, 2009 -- Post #2
JJ:
A reader complains that too many phonebooks is disturbing her life.
Wow, if you think your safety and peace of mind is threatened by a
phone book how would you handle a real crisis? The neighbor's dog
doing business on your lawn must cause a heart attack.
Now "flatline" has the right idea -- turn a lemon into lemonade.
Burning phonebooks instead of wood is a great idea. A guy could go
door to door collecting and probably get a cord of burning material
in a few hours.
May 7, 2009 -- Post #1
JJ:
Good letter by Bob McFarland. It is amazing how many people think
that Federal money is "free money" as if it just fell out of the sky.
It's about time that politicians realized that all tax money (state
and federal) was earned by the hard work of some taxpayer.
It would be nice if we could earmark some money to help one-legged
people learn to ski, but just as we cannot as individuals pay for
everything we want that sounds good, neither can we the people
through the government.
We just cannot borrow forever for every project that sounds
benevolent. Instead, we must spend the money we have as wisely as
possible realizing many good spending projects just have to stay on
the back burner until we get the money to pay for them.
May 7, 2009 -- Post #2
Grandjester writes:
"Obviously neither of you understand the concept, nor do you
understand that even at their most outrageous, 'earmarks' only
compose one half of one percent of the federal budget."
JJ:
So because that's only a mere $15 billion or so we should just not be
concerned. That type of thinking is what has gotten this country in
the trouble it is.
The Left likes to define earmarks down to the smallest hole possible
to make critics look ridiculous, but it could be argued that most of
the $750 billion stimulus was earmarks by some bureaucrat.
The bottom line is this.
If we do not have the money then we shouldn't be borrowing from the
Chinese for feel good partisan projects.
How someone can disagree with that is an amazing thing.
May 8, 2009 -- Post #1
JJ:
It is really getting old hearing the unthinking accusing anyone who
disagrees with the Left as being as pawn of talk radio and Fox News,
as if they are unable to think for themselves.
The Right could do the same thing if they were so small minded and in
every other sentence accuse anyone left leaning of being a pawn of
MSMBC, NYT, Michael Moore, etc. I'm glad most conservatives use
reason instead of this primitive tactic.
I tune into talk radio and Fox for the same reason I watch NBC News
and read the Idaho Statesman. The reason is not to be told how to
think, but to get accurate news and insights so I can form my own
opinion.
The next time you hear someone say: "you are just parroting Limbaugh
and Fox" you've got to realize what you are really hearing. They are
really saying:
"I'm not smart enough to give an intelligent response because I'm
just a wind up doll for the Left."
May 8, 2009 -- Post #2
"TWall":
"To me real people are mostly liberal because to me generosity is a
liberal quality based on the idea that helping others is something
that liberals are politically inclined to do."
JJ:
Read this from the New York Times and weep:
"Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, 'Who
Really Cares,' cites data that households headed by conservatives
give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A
study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual
contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of
liberals."
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
Notice none of the sources are from Fox or talk radio. Instead the
sources are a liberal newspaper and a liberal columnists commenting
on a book written by a Democrat.
It's sad that the Left automatically discounts anything that are not
from Leftists sources and is quick to even discount these if quoted
by the Right.
May 8, 2009 -- Post #3
JJ:
"TWall" is concerned that conservatives give so much to religion. This
is true that a lot of their giving goes to their religion, but then a
lot of that religious giving goes to religious charities that help
the disadvantaged -- like feeding poor kids in third world countries
and supplying an education.
On the other hand, giving from the Left often goes to their religious
type beliefs such as Geenpeace, Sierra Club, ACLU, etc. As far as
liberals giving to the arts and research -- that does little to help
those who are in real need.
It is interesting that during the 2000 election Bush's tax returns
showed he gave about 14% to charity and Gore only gave about $250.
"Twall":
"Joseph, what is sad to me is that no matter what I say or how much we
do this you do not waver because as you have said before 'facts prove
little or nothing.'"
JJ:
I said facts prove little unless they are related to the argument.
The fact that the clock says it is noon proves nothing about your
weight, but it is evidence of the time of day. That was my point and
I cannot believe you would not agree with this.
"Twall":
"It says to me that you have no regard for my opinions or research."
JJ:
I think we all concentrate on our disagreements here than our
agreements -- it makes more interesting dialog.
I can find things you say that has value. For instance you just said
that giving is a liberal trait. You are correct if we use the
classic definition of liberal, but the political world has turned the
meaning of conservative/liberal upside down.
I am a Libertarian, and as liberal as you can get by strict
definition, but most here would label me conservative.
"Twall":
"'Lefties discount all from non lefty sources,' you discount heavily
(not all) from 'non Righty sources.'"
JJ:
You say this just after I quote from a liberal source. I do not
think you have any evidence to back up your statement. I attempt to
draw on the true facts no matter what the source.
"Twall":
"The problem is when the 'unthinking' confront you with a little
reason you completely discount."
JJ:
If it makes sense I will accept, if it makes no sense I will reject
no matter what the source.
"Twall":
"That's fine with me, but at least I read your story with an open mind."
JJ:
And I have read every link given by a liberal here connected with
anything I write. I have sometimes quoted from them. I also agreed
with you on overpopulation, but you were too bullheaded to admit that
the US Post Office has a monopoly on first class mail even though the
Post Office itself admits it.
"Twall":
"I didn't discount like you have always done with differing opinions."
JJ:
The facts in the article I referenced are pretty ironclad -- to the
extent that the Democrat researcher changed his mind.
If an opinion disagrees with my own and it makes no sense then of
course I will not accept it. What sane person would? I am sure you
have the same approach as me here -- do you not?
On the other hand, if some disagree and they have facts to back them
up I will change my mind.
I appreciate the exchange and do value your opinion, but will not
change my own unless you present a good reason to do so. I'm sure
the same is true of you.
May 8, 2009 -- Post #4
"Twall":
"Since my opinions disagree with yours and I have backed them up with
facts why haven't you changed your mind in some cases? Are you afraid
to admit I may be right or does my 'argument make no sense.'"
JJ:
Just saying this does not make it so. You must give me an example.
We are supposed to stay with the current topic here so this is
probably not the place to rehash the past disagreements.
If you find some fact I do not accept just corner me with it at the time.
May 9, 2009 -- Post #1
JJ:
Even though I am big on low taxes and less spending one of the few
taxes I support is for transportation.
I find it irritating though that we are faced with another tax
increase after we recently had a sales tax increase from 5 to 6%.
You'd think we could cut some spending on other programs and move the
needed money to transportation.
Since I realize this is wishful thinking at the present I would
support a tax increase on fuel.
We've going to have to figure out a new tax soon, however, when we
convert to hybrid and electric cars. Big Brother will want to
install a monitoring device in every car and charge us by the mile --
either that or create a big tax on electricity itself.
May 9, 2009 -- Post #2
"Grandjester" wrote:
"Ms. Davis, Let me tell you about a man, who has literally lived off
the government teat since the moment he was born. Born on a US base,
everything in his early life was paid for by our government. Other
than a brief period in the private sector, he has been paid or cared
for by or tax dollars for the last three quarters of a century. He
collects THREE checks from the US Government every month, including
his substantial salary (which includes the best health care plan in
America), a healthy government pension (he'll get another BIGGER
pension when he leaves his current Govt. job) AND Social Security.
ALL of this despite the fact that he married a multi-millionaire
heiress thirty years ago. Do you know who this man is?"
JJ:
Obviously you are talking about McCain here and you want to peg him
as a hypocrite because he receives income from the government.
This is not only an illogical accusation, but silly.
First, McCain (or any Republican I know) has never taught that
government employees should not be paid by for their service.
He has never said we should not receive Social Security.
Just because a person may believe in smaller government does not mean
there is any hypocrisy in being paid for your service or taking back
the money paid into Social Security.
To be a hypocrite one has to do something contrary to what one
teaches or believes in. McCain has his faults, but he is not a
hypocrite in this area.
"What this country needs is more free speech worth listening to."
-- Hansell B. Duckett
-- End Of Article --
Go To:
Next article in series: Local Posts #19
Previous article in series: Local Posts #17
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved
|