Local Posts #52

2009-12-29 11:19:00

Nov 22, 2009 -- Post #1

Mr. Smith writes:

"Public schools, however, need to teach fundamentals: math, language, science, health and social studies. Let's keep pseudo science and religion out."

JJ:

He seems to be fearing the bogeyman about religion being taught in public schools. Anything Christian is pretty much banned there. We do, however, have a big problem with pseudo science and propaganda. For one thing, Al Gore's emotionally based film, which is full of error, should be banned like the story of Adam and Eve is.

The kids are often taught false ideas of saving the environment when the ideas do more harm than good. They are not taught the importance of nuclear energy -- a source that can power the world with no greenhouse gases.

They are taught numerous scientific, but unproven theories, but other theory is ignored or banned.

They are poorly educated in the history of this country. If you doubt it, watch Jay Leno reruns. They are taught politically correct history rather than real and complete history.

  

Nov 22, 2009 -- Post #2

"RunStavrosRun":

"Joseph, me thinks you're purely speculating. Students at the school in which I teach can take a variety of courses in both environmental science and nuclear science. Our science department does a phenomenal job of presenting a well-balanced curriculum."

JJ:

Sounds encouraging. Do you teach at a high school? I remember when I was a kid back in the 60's we learned the basics of how nuclear energy works and the promise it held for humanity as part of the physics class. Do you have a class devoted to nuclear energy and if so how far does it go? (Note: He didn't answer my questions.)

  

Nov 22, 2009 -- Post #3

"Badnana":

"There are a couple of things I cannot get my head around, so I am posting here, knowing that the leading experts will guide me. What is the danger of cleaning up our environment?"

JJ:

There is none. Why would anyone think this?

  

"Badnana":

"If there is no global warming, are we furthering some horrible cause to limit pollution?"

JJ:

You've got it backwards. The "cap and trade" system would increase pollution worldwide. Why? Because it would do such damage to the economy that we would have less money to develop real clean technology. The Third World needs money from the developed nations to clean up their environment and if we are broke they will be doomed to environmental squalor.

Research shows that improvement on the environment corresponds to economic growth.

And even if cap and trade went as planned it would have negligible effect on the earth's temperature. It will produce the least improvement on the environment per dollar spent than anything we could tackle.

Global warming is used as the big selling point for cap and trade. If they were really serious, and if CO2 emissions were as dangerous as they say, then we would go full speed ahead with nuclear energy and fast breeder reactors that can recycle nuclear waste into clean carbon free fuel. Neither would we be breaching our dams that give us carbon free energy.

  

"Badnana":

"It is equally confusing how gay marriage ruins the sanctity of my marriage, so please, enlighten me."

JJ:

I personally can't get excited about this issue one way or another. If gays are granted civil unions with all the benefits of marriage, isn't that the same as marriage, but without the certificate? Can't any gay in the country make an agreement with his partner and just proclaim themselves married now? No one is going to throw them in jail for it.

The big hang-up is the word "marriage." Traditionalists feel imposed upon for altering the meaning of the word. It's a little like feeling miffed over people who insist on saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas." Or what if someone wanted to change the meaning of Thanksgiving to "Free love Day?" It would seem imposing.

  

"Badnana":

"By the way, in honor of thanksgiving week, I want to say I am thankful for so many things, including 60 votes."

JJ:

We'll see how thankful you are 4 years after it is implemented.

  

Nov 22, 2009 -- Post #4

"Badnana":

"Joseph says: 'Can't any gay in the country make an agreement with his partner and just proclaim themselves married now? No one is going to throw them in jail for it.'

"Sure, if there were no benefits missing from that but there are. My friends that each have good jobs cannot put each other on as...."

JJ:

The health benefits advantage will be a moot point if Obamacare passes. I don't think most conservatives think anything can interfere with the sanctity of their marriage. It irritates them that words are being redefined and some do not want it for Biblical reasons.

  

Nov 23, 2009 -- Post #1

"Wallace Stetson" writes:

"Guess what we would be paying if there was no Medicare."

JJ:

Before there was no Medicare costs were cheaper than they are now with Medicare. in 1958 I spent a month in the hospital and my costs were $8 a day and my mother and I paid it off picking fruit, mowing lawns and working at a potato plant. We had no government assistance and no child support but costs were so low that we didn't need insurance or government help.

It was right after the government tried to "help" us with Medicare that costs started to skyrocket. Is there a connection? I think so.

  

Nov 23, 2009 -- Post #2

"Gimmeshelter" writes:

"Joe: Try paying off $1000 per day hospital rooms by picking fruit at $7.25 per hour."

JJ:

That's my point. You can't do this since Medicare and government "help" came to be.

  

"Ronk83704" writes:

"If your theory is right, why didn't the Insurance Companies keep the cost down? After all, they are in business for our benefit, aren't they?"

JJ:

When medical costs go up, thanks to government "help," then insurance costs will have to go up or they will not make a profit. I though everyone understood this.

We need to undue all the bungling we have created and then we can go back to affordable healthcare.

Dr. Muney tried to bypass government help but encountered difficulties. He was going to provide all but major surgery for $79 a month in the expensive state of New York.

See:

http://blog.americanjusticecenter.com/2009/03/state-orders -dr-john-muney-to-stop.html

  

Nov 24, 2009 -- Post #1

Richard Connor writes:

"When the 'religious right' sing hymns like 'Faith of our Fathers, Living Still,' they believe our founding fathers were 'born again Christians.' That is about as far from the truth as Earth is to Mars. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin, Thomas Paine and even Abraham Lincoln were Deists."

JJ:

I would probably be called a Deist if I were around a couple hundred years ago. A Deist is not a non Christian, as the Left tries to insinuate, but merely one who rejects outward infallible authority and relies on that which appeals to reason.

Franklin was the only Founding Father I can find who stated he was a Deist. Paine was a Deist, but he was not a Founder. Jefferson was a Unitarian. Washington and Adams rejected infallible authority, but they were religious enough that today the Left would call them right wing extremists.

Deism did not exist as a movement during the life of Lincoln so it is unlikely he would have called himself one. He was not a member of the church and preferred to make his own connection with God. He read the Bible, prayed regularly, often quoted Bible verses and even called for a national day of prayer.

Numerous founders were pretty orthodox Christians of their day and just about all believed in Christ in some capacity.

Basically the Left is saying that the Founders were not Christian because they did not fit the mold of the right wing fanatic born-againer that keeps dancing around in their minds. Indeed, even today it is difficult to find such a creature.

The truth is that a Christian is merely one who believes in Christ and all the founders had some type of belief in him making them Christians. Just because they were not snake-handling, roll-on-the-floor fire-breathing believers does not mean they were not Christians.

  

Nov 24, 2009 -- Post #2

JJ:

Walt is to be congratulated. He actually criticized Fox News without mindlessly calling them Faux Noise or something similar. This may be a first.

I think he copied and pasted his post from Media Matters rather than actually watching Fox.

He says:

"They reproduce a Republican press release, including typos."

JJ:

What do you think press releases are for? They are for the press to use. If they checked it and it was accurate then what's the big deal? The other media uses Obama releases all the time, but if conservatives found a typo they would consider it too minor to mention.

  

Walt:

"They (Fox) run nearly two dozen excerpts from health care forums in a five-day period in which every speaker was opposed."

JJ:

You must be talking about the opinion people and not the newspeople. The main news guy for Fox is Shephard Smith, a Democrat. Does any other media have a Republican for their main news guy? I don't think so.

  

Walt:

"They allow their producers to cheer-lead anti-Obama protesters."

JJ:

And ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN and MSNBC didn't cheerlead for Obama? right? Matthews represented the bunch when he stated that Obama gave him a thrill going up his leg.

  

Walt:

"They take out full-page ads to complain of insufficient coverage of anti-government protest marches they had promoted."

JJ:

And what's wrong with that? Does not Fox have freedom of speech?

  

Walt:

"They run the following headlines, trumpeting each story as a 'Fox Nation Victory:'

"- Senate Removes 'End of Life' Provision.
- Congress Delays Health Care Rationing Bill.
- Anti-Tea Party Reporter Dumped by CNN.
- Obama's Drive for Climate Change Bill Delayed.
- Obama's 'Green Czar' Resigns."

JJ:

The headlines mentioned are stories censored by the rest of the media. That makes Fox the only real news organization.

Here's hot recent story censored by most of the other media:

http://video.foxnews.com/11874813/political-grapevine-1123

Also see:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125883405294859215.html

This should be as huge as Watergate, but the other media do not want you to see it because it exposes the lies and distortions of the supposed global warming scientists.

  

Walt:

"Instances like these mark Fox News as an extremist propaganda outlet, not a news organization."

JJ:

It is too bad that Lefties see Fox as extreme for merely reporting all the news, rather than sterile, censored, whitewashed, boring partial news.

  

Nov 24, 2009 -- Post #3

"Badnana" wrote:

"So there are commentators on Fox that are dems? Joe is republican through and through. He was even a congressman (R) so what was your point? Oh, right, you don't even have one."

JJ:

My obvious point was that if Fox News is so extreme right then what are they doing with a Democrat as their main news anchor when none of the other media have a Republican in the same position?

  

Nov 24, 2009 -- Post #4

"Graymatter" wrote:

"Please cite evidence backing your statement: 'The headlines mentioned are stories censored by the rest of the media.'? These headlines are readily available all news sites. I guess you wouldn't know since you have only one source of 'news.'"

JJ:

You can find most anything on the Internet but outside of Fox the television news is very limited and screens out many stories that do not fit their agenda. Prove to me these stories appeared on TV.

  

"Graymatter":

"Review: WaterGate was a major American scandal involving the sitting U.S. president conspiring to debase the integrity of the U.S. Constitution. Your story is just that. A story carried by major news outlets about unconfirmed materials."

JJ:

Yes. You found it on the Internet where few will look but where was it on the television news except for Fox?

  

"Graymatter":

"Since when is the ACLU a democratic organization?"

JJ:

Where have you been? 99% of their cases support the Democratic ideology. Wait. You will want exact proof that it is 99%. Maybe it is 98%. They have a token extreme right wing case every now and then just for show.

  

"Graymatter":

"Please cite where Greta has declared herself a Democrat?"

JJ:

I heard it on Fox when she first arrived there. For proof go to http://newsmeat.com/media_political_donations/

This site shows she's made 100% of her contributions to Democrats.

  

"Graymatter":

"Please cite where Shepard Smith has declared himself a Democrat?"

JJ:

Show me where he has said he is a Republican. I heard Brit Hume from Fox state that Smith was a Democrat.

  

"Graymatter":

"What does Smith's political orientation have to do with FauxNews entertainment being impartial?"

JJ:

Duh... If you have people from both sides you will have more impartiality.

  

"Graymatter":

"The problem is, FauxNews watchers believe Hannity, O'Reilly, Colmes, Beck, etc., are news?"

JJ:

You're making things up again. I do not know anyone that believes this. However if they comment on a news story -- that does not mean the news story itself was not news. Then there are cases where they do break a news story, but this is the exception.

  

"Poisonedapple" wrote:

"One thing I notice is how 'GrayMatter' shuts down Joseppi."

JJ:

Prove it. I do not recall this ever happening. There has been several times she has hit me with a lot of questions in the evening that I haven't been able to get to until late at night. You probably did not read them the next day.

  

Nov 27, 2009 -- Post #1

Jim says:

"Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele said that, so far, the health care debate 'has been anything but open; it has been anything but fair.'

"I agree. I want a full, open debate on health care. That is why I am bothered that the GOP, as a whole, voted against a full, open floor debate on the bill."

JJ:

Michael Steele wanted input on writing the original bill. The Republicans were denied this. Being presented with a bill to just fine tune is not an open debate. That's like the Dad telling his kid he can paint his bicycle red only, but he can give his opinion on the shade. The problem is the kid wants a blue bicycle but is not even allowed to express his real, opinion. The decision of a red bike has been made.

  

Nov 28, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

I don't think any of the Founders thought of our government as "Godless." Thomas Jefferson was one of the least religious of the Founders and in the Declaration of Independence he wrote: "all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights."

Our government created Thanksgiving as a national holiday to give thanks to God and Christmas to acknowledge the birth of Christ. For many decades we allowed religious meetings in government buildings and schools. Congress opens meetings with prayer. There is a marble frieze directly above the justices' bench with an engraving of Moses at the Supreme Court. We also have pastors in the government run military that preach to the troops.

Obviously the Founders did not want a Godless government, but neither did they want any religion dictating to government. The key is to avoid either extreme which are (1) Eliminate any mention of God whatsoever or (2) having any religion dictate policy.

  

Nov 29, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Mr. Pagan writes various things about his beliefs of the Right wing:

"The Right wing says: The Democrats want to kill grandma."

This is not what the Right wing says, but what the Left says the Right says in an attempt to discredit them. Of course Democrats do not want to kill grandma, but it could be an unintended consequence if Obamacare produces a shortage of both doctors and money to take care of her.

  

"Pagan" writes:

"Answer: They (the Democrats) want to inform older people about all of their options."

JJ:

So do Republicans.

  

"Pagan":

"The government wants to take over health care."

JJ:

The government has no will, but Obama has expressed a desire to create a one-payer system which would have to involve the government taking over health care.

  

"Pagan":

"We have the best health reform bill."

JJ:

Anything, including doing nothing, would be better than the current bill.

  

"Pagan":

"We know what to do in Afghanistan - send more troops. Answer: Now Cheney is the expert? 'The Forgotten War.'"

JJ:

The war was not forgotten and until now generals received the support they requested.

  

"Pagan":

"The government is playing scare tactics with the H1N1 virus."

JJ:

I haven't heard that, but people of both parties are concerned about the vaccine.

  

"Pagan":

"We can give affordable health insurance to all Americans with tax cuts."

JJ:

Where did this come from? Haven't heard anyone say this.

  

"Pagan":

"The Democrats want to own the car companies and the banks."

JJ:

It's a fact they are buying ownership.

  

"Pagan":

"There is no global warming."

JJ:

There hasn't been global warming since 1998 and 2008 was cooler than it was in 1881. Now we have global cooling deniers. The recently released emails reveal that IPCC scientists are dumfounded over the recent cooling.

  

"Pagan":

"To those right wing believers, you seem to deserve eight more years of 'W.'"

JJ:

I'll take "W" anytime over the current bunch.

  

Nov 29, 2009 -- Post #2

"2Cents":

"You say you are Libertarian, but you sure seem to be spelling it 'Republican'."

JJ:

Libertarians are much more in harmony with Republicans than Democrats as Republicans stand up for liberty more often. I tend to stand up for fairness here more than ideology as I find that Republicans are unfairly attacked more than Democrats. If they are unfairly attacked I will stand up for what was truly meant or a true position even if I disagree with it.

Here is a test to determine how libertarian one is. It is not perfect but it is a good indicator:

http://www.bcaplan.com/cgi-bin/purity.cgi

I took it and here is the comment on my score: "91-130 points: You have entered the heady realm of hard-core libertarianism. Now doesn't that make you feel worse that you didn't get a perfect score?"

Not all Libertarians think alike just as all Lefties do not think exactly alike but most Libertarians agree 80% or more of the time and on the basics we are very much in harmony.

  

Nov 29, 2009 -- Post #3

JJ:

Orthodox Global Warmers, read this and weep:

"SCIENTISTS at the University of East Anglia (UEA) have admitted throwing away much of the raw temperature data on which their predictions of global warming are based.

"It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

"The UEA's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) was forced to reveal the loss following requests for the data under Freedom of Information legislation.

"The admission follows the leaking of a thousand private emails sent and received by Professor Phil Jones, the CRU's director. In them he discusses thwarting climate sceptics seeking access to such data.

"In a statement on its website, the CRU said: 'We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenized) data.'"

Full story at:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6936328.ece