Local Posts #53

2010-1-3 03:53:00

Nov 30, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Right on Jeff. Slow pokes should turn over driving to those who do not annoy people like you and me.

I remember back in high school a couple friends of mine were following a slow driver up "Freeze-Out" Hill on the old road that took ages to ascend. The guy was going so slow that my friend got out of the car and ran passed the old geezer just to show him how slow he was going.

When I was a kid there was an old guy in the neighborhood that drove so slow that we had to be careful following him on our bikes or we would bump into him. One time he was spotted reading a newspaper while he was driving.

I swore at that time I would never drive so slow when I got older. Here I am now at 64 and I am true to my commitment. I still have to be careful or I get stopped for speeding.

  

Dec 1, 2009 -- Post #1

Cecilia writes:

"Men who are impressed by the physical beauty of a woman are not using the brains God gave them."

JJ:

Every normal guy who is honest, whether he be smart or stupid, must admit he is attracted to beautiful women. To think otherwise is to go against nature.

Does this mean that women who are not beautiful are doomed to loneliness and rejection?

No.

They can be attractive in other ways. Men are also attracted to intelligence, emotional strength, nurturing, sweetness, talent, nice personality, etc. Whatever the character though, beauty is also a big bonus.

Tiger Woods just demonstrated it is not the only thing. He is married to a beautiful woman that must have lacked something for he had an affair with a less attractive woman. And look at Prince Charles who was more attracted to frumpy Camilia than to the lovely Princess Diana. If anyone was stupid about beauty, he was.

  

Dec 1, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

It is interesting to note that the legalization of drugs is not a strict conservative and/or liberal issue. Famous names on the Right that support it are John Stossel, Ron Paul, William F. Buckley, Neal Bortz, Bob Barr, etc. Few on the Left, however, want full legalization, but partial. I think the reason for this is that even though they are for free sex, drugs and rock and roll, they are reluctant to relinquish the power that they would lose with full legalization.

The Left is so much into power over the people that they seek to make it illegal to even smoke cigarettes outside. If pot was made legal they would probably start attacking anyone who made money from it and make things so restrictive that one would have to go into a cave to smoke it -- along with the tobacco smokers.

  

Dec 1, 2009 -- Post #3

"Badnana" wrote:

"'Straw man,' Joseph. If your arguments about the Left had any merit, it would not be necessary to 'probably' anything."

JJ:

I know that for orthodox Global Warming true believers that the future is not probable, but is predetermined by scientists that fudge statistics, but for all others nothing is set. All future consists of probabilities. Boise State will probably win the game against New Mexico, but it is not a sure thing. There is a probability we could be hit with a gamma ray burst tonight so there would be no humanity tomorrow, hence no game at all.

It is almost a sure thing that if pot were legal that the Left would be the ones who would want to tax and regulate it to death. But, if we had enough Lefties directly effected so their own pot smoking were adversely affected then they may lay off, but I don't think so because many Lefties do not smoke. Also they have this uncontrollable urge to regulate and restrict the enjoyment of others.

"Badnana" wrote:

"I am constantly amazed at your lack of skills to produce cogent reasoning."

JJ:

Instead of declaring me wrong with godlike authority; show me where I am wrong.

What's that I hear?

Cursing, because no logical reply can be produced.

  

Dec 2, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

The Bible or anything from it these days, when exposed to a lefty, has the effect of throwing holy water on a vampire. They react more strongly to that than when Muslim extremists cut a guy's head off with a dull knife.

We, as a nation, seem to have difficulty reaching a sensible medium. We've gone from religion burning witches at the stake to crucifying those who carry a Bible or wear a cross.

The intent of the Constitution is to give us freedom of religion, not to insulate the masses from any exposure whatsoever.

  

Dec 3, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Tim Teater quotes Neal Gabler:

"'It (contemporary political conservatism) is a function of a belief in one's own rightness so unshakable that it is not subject to political caveats. In short, what we have in America today is a political fundamentalism, with all the characteristics of religious fundamentalism.'"

Neal Gabler has been a regular on Fox News so obviously he can't be trusted (meant as a humorous dig).

I think Tim must have been hit by a golf club swung by Tiger Woods' wife. It is the Lefties who are like the religious fundamentalists. The most religious conservatives can only dream of catching up.

  

Tim:

"This view certainly dovetails with the intolerance of ambiguity, anti-intellectualism and contempt for disagreement, all of which are hallmarks of conservatism."

JJ:

Again, he is mixed up. One has to go no further than this forum to discover the truth. The Lefties here cannot give an intellectual response to my arguments, they have contempt toward me when I disagree with them and they are ambiguous when they try and make a point. They wind up resorting to name calling.

  

Tim:

"Today, many conservative views on issues such as evolution, global climate change, health care reform and free-market absolutism are faith-based, that is, held with the 'absolute certainty of religious belief,' in spite of fact and science."

JJ:

Backwards thinking again. Climategate is a good example. It has revealed that orthodox global warmers are indeed true believers to the extent that they have falsified data, erased data and shut out opposing points of view so the real science cannot even surface. There's nothing left to sustain the need for cap ands trade but a fanatical religious type belief that cannot be proven.

  

Tim:

"This renders political discourse and compromise impossible, and poisons our political system."

JJ:

It certainly does.

  

Tim:

"Furthermore, it emboldens conservatives (correction: Lefties) to shout down and intimidate the opposition and to characterize opponents as enemies to be crushed."

JJ:

This is right with the correction noted.

  

Tim:

"It is critical to not give in to the intellectual McCarthyism of the right."

JJ:

McCarthy was Mother Teresa compared to the modern Left.

  

Tim:

"Moderates and liberals are not the enemy...."

JJ:

The real enemies of freedom and progress are those trapped in illusion to the extent that they cannot see the truth right in front of their faces. For instance, they do not realize that we cannot borrow our way into prosperity and it is disastrous to spend that which we do not have or cannot raise. Some are so brazen to think we can raise $500 billion by being more frugal with Medicare spending. ROTFLMAO!!!

On another note, Sponge Bob for President!

  

Dec 2, 2009 -- Post #2

"Flatline" gives this Bush quote:

"'I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world. And I wish him all the very best.'
  -- George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Jan. 12, 2009"

JJ:

Typical Lefty distortion. Their greatest weapon is either false or distorted data, such as now proven with global warming.

Here's the quote from Bush in its true context:

"I'm confident, you know, you'll catch me opining on occasion, but I wish him (Obama) all the best.

"And people say, oh, you just -- that's just a throwaway line. No, it's not a throwaway line. The stakes are high. There is an enemy that still is out there. You know, people can maybe try to write that off as, you know, he's trying to set something up. I'm telling you there's an enemy that would like to attack America, Americans, again. There just is. That's the reality of the world.

"And I wish him (Obama) all the very best.

"And of course, he's (Obama) going to have his hands full with the economy."

To anyone who listened to the speech (which I did) it is obvious that Bush was graciously referring to Obama and not the "enemy." It is mean spirited and unfair to distort his words to mean otherwise.

  

"Badnana":

"The 'tea bagger' name was SELF-imposed for the people organizing the 'tea party' movement. When the realization came that it was also a sexual innuendo, they changed it to 'tea party' so hanging that on the left as name calling."

JJ:

Another typical distortion. The gay slang term "tea baggers" applied to the tea party people did not originate with the tea parties but with the media who hates them. It gained attention when Anderson Cooper used the term despairingly on CNN on April 14, 2009.

  

Dec 2, 2009 -- Post #3

"Badnana" wrote:

"In correlation with this is a photo of a protester holding a sign that says, 'tea bag them before they tea bag us.'

"From Wikipedia:  'Teabaggers born January 20, 2009, are American protesters with little to no understanding of sexual slang.'"

JJ:

The sign DID NOT say "teabaggers" but was referring to the sending of tea bags to Congress. You are distorting again. The Left started the use of the word "teabaggers" in reference to the Right. What is it with the Left that they just can only argue with distorted data?

  

Dec 2, 2009 -- Post #4

"Camerafan":

"POSTERS: I am dead serious! Please read 'Joe's Revenge's' comments and quote on this page. I am appalled and distressed. He has gone way over the line here folks. In my opinion, speech like this is treasonous and dangerous. I have hit the 'Report Abuse' button and hope any and all you please do...."

JJ:

Wow... Talk about overreaction. Joe (not me) explained that he meant him no physical harm. You guys just cannot handle another point of view being expressed here. And it's a myth that Obama is receiving more death threats than Bush. The number of threats has not gone up since he became president.

  

Dec 2, 2009 -- Post #5

"Joe's Revenge" wrote:

"May his (Obama's) days in office be few indeed."

JJ:

I think most of the Right agrees with this sentiment from the point of voting him out of office at the first opportunity but we do not want any harm to come to him for several reasons:

Case in point. JFK was killed by a left wing communist and still the media tried to blamed the Right as well as portray Oswald as belonging to the Right. They did this by emphasizing that he was a former Marine and inferred that all marines must be right wing. In addition, he loved guns and was shown with pictures of him holding guns, which of course conjures up right wing in the public's mind. The media was so successful at this distortion that many of the public thought the Right was responsible for his death.

  

Dec 2, 2009 -- Post #6

JJ:

Camerfan says she is surprised that I am defending Joe. I wasn't seeking defense I only want to clarify what he means and he did clarify and said he wants no harm to the president. You, however, claim to be able to read his mind and interpret his words as something different than he point blank says he means. I do not claim to be a mind reader so I just accept him at his word -- you do not for some strange reason.

Claret:

"Quit making stuff up, the secret service stat is that threats against the president are up 400%, that's 4X."

JJ:

That's from an undocumented source, but even if it is true the CNN story says there is a 400% difference in threats from one point in his presidency to another. The CBS source I referenced actually quoted Secret service Director Mike Sullivan as saying the current threats are "the same level as it has been for the previous two presidents at this point in their administrations." If the threat level is then up it means that he started with a very low threat level. There is no data to contradict this. Why not accept the obvious?

  

Dec 5, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Sounds like Paul Dawson is a student who is learning only one side of this issue. He thinks he knows the science when he really only knows the religion.

Hopefully he is now aware of "Climategate," which reveals that UN scientists, who depend on grants, are suppressing studies from the other side of the issue as well as falsifying and destroying data.

Here's a good article giving the other side:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/climate_challenges.html

For a more in depth study go here and check out some of the links:
http://theresilientearth.com/

  

Dec 5, 2009 -- Post #2

"Boiseriver":

"You are consistent in your inaccuracies. The stolen emails you refer to prove nothing."

JJ:

You must not have read them then or you would be in the position of denying reality. I'm sure Phil Jones stepped down because they were nothing.

  

Dec 5, 2009 -- Post #3

Claret:

"There you go again Joe, rebut a person getting information from science journals with your information out of a right wing op-ed mag. By the way where is the proof that data was falsified or destroyed."

JJ:

This is just one of the HUGE stories that people like you do not get because you only watch the censored media:

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

I would feel shortchanged if my sources were censoring my news.

  

Dec 5, 2009 -- Post #4

"Badnana":

"I do not understand. Whether there is global 'wierding' (much more accurate word) or not, how does it benefit the deniers to deny it?"

JJ:

I've explained this before, but it seems to go over your head.

First skeptics are not global warming deniers. That phrase is falsely labeled upon us to make it look like we are denying science. The evidence seems to be that the earth has warmed about one degree over the last century, though that is now in doubt because IPCC scientists have destroyed original data so there is no way to verify temperatures. If we use 1998 as the baseline the earth has cooled so one would be accurate in saying there is global cooling in the present.

  

"Badnana":

"Are you a happier lot with smoke stacks belching pollution into your world? Are you more content when smog hangs over the skyline?"

JJ:

If you are talking about mercury or sulfur dioxide, sure we are all in favor of reducing these. But the true believers are talking about CO2 which is not a pollutant, but a plant food and is contributing to a greener earth.

  

"Badnana":

"The knee-jerk response is always, 'It's the money' or references to cap and trade, yet there are no down sides to cleaning up our world."

JJ:

Money is significant if you spend a lot and get little or nothing for it. Even if we implemented cap and trade and assume CO2 warms as projected the trillions spent and lost would only effect the temperature .05 degrees C by the year 2050 and very little after this. This also assumes a big increase in nuclear energy even though the Left has done everything in their power to block its development. The benefit would be negligible would not measurably effect sea levels. The cost would be the loss of many jobs and the poor would have to pay more for energy.

This is an insane use of money.

  

"Badnana":

"Green energy solutions make sense, regardless of political bent, yet the detractors want it to be politics. It isn't."

JJ:

Then you should support nuclear energy because 90% of the CO2 savings in this country has been from nuclear even though the greens have fought it tooth and nail.

A cost effective way to reduce CO2 and true pollutants is to put the trillions into nuclear rather than make Al Gore a billionaire through cap and trade.

  

Dec 5, 2009 -- Post #5

"Badnana":

"You ASSSUUUMMMEE I am against nuclear energy, and you say your position goes over my head (what a rude thing to say, right?) I have said and maintain nuclear energy is one of many options that need to be explored. Are you going to refer to the waste and how we handle it, or just keep insulting me? maybe you could come down off your high horse."

JJ:

I've written about this before so I assumed you either missed it or what I said went over your head -- that you didn't register it. I wasn't saying that what I write now goes over your head.

If you support nuclear then why are you for cap and trade? Why not just throw the trillions wasted there into nuclear energy instead? Then we could make a real difference, not only in CO2, but in mercury and sulfur dioxide and other pollutants.

Fast breeder reactors could recycle all the nuclear waste. The technology was developed in Arco and stopped by Clinton.

  

Dec 7, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Facts on global warming:

According to NASA 1881 was warmer than it was in 2008.

It has not warmed since 1998. Those who say it is currently warming are global cooling deniers.

Polar bears are not endangered but increased several times in population.

More ice is forming in the world than melting. Melting is a regional phenomenon. Underwater volcanoes releasing heat is part of the reason.

The planet cooled between 1940-1978 during the first great surge of CO2 on the planet. Does not compute.

As more CO2 is put in the atmosphere the effect on warming is reduced.

CO2 is a plant food and makes for a greener more productive planet.

We are geologically due for another ice age and if extra CO2 warms us a little this could be a good thing -- otherwise glaciers could come down to Boise.

If the alarmists are correct then nuclear energy is the only logical alternative, but most are against this. That would compare to a downing man refusing a helping hand.

IPCC predictions have not been accurate.

  

Dec 7, 2009 -- Post #2

JJ:

Ken is all for a health care bill that he has not read nor understands. Why do I know this? Because no one has read and understands it. This monstrosity is over 2000 pages and is written so obscurely that it can be twisted to mean anything.

I started reading this thing and it made my head spin. Everyone I know of that has read any part of it makes a similar comment. Maybe the lobbyists who wrote it understand the bill but Ken and others do not.

Support of this bill is the ultimate act of faith -- not in God but in government ran by the Left.