Local Posts #68

2010-3-6 09:27:00

  

Feb 6, 2010 -- Post #1

"Badfader" wrote:

"Are you kidding? Most people around here don't have independent views. They just spout whatever Rush Limbaugh says."

"MrHyde" wrote:

"And the remaining 20 percent just spout what Keith Olbermann says."

JJ:

You guys got it backwards -- at least here in the Statesman forums. I'd say the argument of at least 80 percent of the bunch here goes something like this for everything they disagree with:

"Rush -- bad; Beck -- evil; 'Faux Noise' -- awful."

If these three get mentioned in one breath the body of the Lefty will shake violently driving them to low consciousness and only the sound of Rachel Maddow's voice can restore them to functioning life.

  

Feb 6, 2010 -- Post #2

"LikeItIs" wrote:

"What sheep (speaking of the Idaho missionaries retained in Haiti). I wonder what they think about doing 'God's work' now?"

JJ:

What's with this bunch being so paranoid about those who seek to do God's will?

I've seen this statement repeated many times the past few days. Sure there are those who make mistakes thinking they are following God's will but that is nothing compared to the repercussions of our politicians who mindlessly follow their party leader's will. Often Christians thinking they are following God's will, will feed the hungry and give them medical attention and have no negative effect on me. But politicians following the higher will of party leaders will often cost all of us higher taxes and unnecessary new laws and regulations that do nothing but annoy intelligent people.

  

Feb 6, 2010 -- Post #3

JJ:

And point to one time this has happened (that Lefties have bested me in the Haiti discussion). You are counting quantity of the voices rather than quality.

"Farva" responded with:

"Here you go Joseph:  www.idahostatesman.com "

JJ:

It must be embarrassing that this is the best you can do.

  

Feb 6, 2010 -- Post #4

"RatRace427":

"If Laura Silsby is found guilty then it follows that the deer in the headlights 9 are guilty of being accessory . They can play the 'in the shadow of the cross' card as they all do -- but being stupid doesn't trump being an accessory."

JJ:

I think you could use a little religion yourself. That may help you temper your old time hard-line mob mentality law and order stance and gain a little tolerance and compassion. This statement applies to about half the posters here. (Note: a large percentage of posters wanted the missionaries to rot in a Haiti jail found guilty or not.)

  

Feb 6, 2010 -- Post #5

"PacNthWestNative" wrote:

"Don't know about Haiti, but in this country, ignorance is no excuse."

JJ:

Jim went to a party and was offered a brownie. He ate it and shortly thereafter the police broke in and arrested the whole bunch. Jim admitted he ate a brownie which (unknown to him) contained pot. Technically then he broke the law.

Should he be prosecuted for a crime?

Should the "Ignorant 9" then be prosecuted?

  

Feb 6, 2010 -- Post #6

Lilly wrote:

"I take it your claim earlier that you were kicked out of a church for liberal thinking was a lie, then? I can't imagine that you as a person who's been kicked out, believes someone else needs to think the way you were when you got kicked out. (Does that even make sense? LOL.)"

JJ:

First, I do not lie.

Secondly, my thinking that roused church authorities against me was the same one I am presenting here. I saw God as a merciful Father who will work with us as we do our kids and give us mercy and second chances. I didn't get kicked out for violating any written rule of the church.

Like this bunch here they were into strict law and order and insisted punishments are black-and-white.

BUT when looking at this unfeeling unmerciful online bunch the church looks like Gandhi in comparison.

  

Feb 6, 2010 -- Post #7

"WhippetOnya" wrote:

"LOL....Nope wasn't me...My fliers would have 'Palin/Beck 2012' pictures on them...Sorry to disappoint ya."

JJ:

Palin and/or Beck... Now that would make for an interesting race. Your TV would smoke when you turned on MSNBC.

  

Feb 6, 2010 -- Post #8

"SunnySloper" wrote:

"Joseph, I think you should rephrase your very last sentence. You're implying we're ALL unfeeling and unmerciful on here. That, sir, is a lie. And you said 'I do not lie'. Can't have it both ways...."

JJ:

I meant the bunch here who are into strict law and order. In another post recently I estimated that was around half and should have worded my statement more clearly again.

  

Feb 6, 2010 -- Post #9

"StraightTalk" wrote:

"Hey, guys, Joseph just likes to argue and you feed right into it by arguing with him. No matter what you write he is going to take the opposite. Let him be; ignore him."

JJ:

I just respond with some good old fashion truth. That only goes against those who are in illusion.

  

Feb 6, 2010 -- Post #10

"AlDentePickles" wrote:

"That is rich coming from you. How about the teabagger mob mentality you advocate. How about the tolerance and compassion you never offer for our President. Is that the religion you want others to have? So hypocritical."

JJ:

To disagree with someone is not to be intolerant. You and I both disagree with the ten missionaries, but who is the more tolerant? I rest my case.

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #1

"Random_Ax_of_Kindness" wrote:

"They all do...Pat Robertson, Ted Haggard, James Dobson... always smiling and giving the 'thumbs-up' no matter what."

JJ:

Obama is the master of the eternal smile, but of course this does not bother you.

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #2

"Islanddocrc" wrote:

"Crossing that border with the children required both exit documents from Haiti and entrance documents from the Dominican Republic. Systems down here are not automated as in the U.S. Some things take time. Have Dominican documents, have Haitian documents, but without paying a bribe the Haitian...."

JJ:

Are you residing in Haiti now? I'd be interested in knowing what you are doing? By your handle I would assume you are a physician.

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #3

"RatRace427" wrote:

"Actually it's enough that it bothers you -- that makes me smile to."

JJ:

No one's smile bothers me. Unlike you, I like smiles.

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #4

"RatRace427" wrote:

"I reside on the island of Hispaniola. For anyone with adequate knowledge of how 'business' is conducted here, the situation should be perfectly clear."

JJ:

I enjoy your posts. The more you write the better. I'd be interested in knowing if you are in the Dominican Republic or Haiti. But if it is awkward to tell us about your situation I can understand.

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #5

"BSU_Broncos_Rock" wrote:

"It seems you do not understand this situation. She has a history of lies, deceit, and of breaking laws. Even the eight stupid sheep with her have called her a liar and said that she is trying to control them."

JJ:

The situation is not supposed to be a lynch mob here. It is not against the law to lie. We should judge her worthy of punishment by known legal facts. If we want to speculate then we should label it as such.

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #6

"Poobah" wrote:

"One must necessarily be able to discern the differences in these smiles we are discussing. The 'Christian smile' is a well known expression and has been not only identified but even mocked by SNL, et al."

JJ:

You might be right if you said hair, but Obama's smile is about as Christian looking as you can get.

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #7

"Aussie" wrote:

"Whenever I read a story about these people I think of a scene from one movie ['The Blues Brothers']:

"Jake:  'First you traded the Cadillac in for a microphone. Then you lied to me about the band. And now you're gonna put me right back in the joint!'

"Elwood:  'They're not gonna catch us. We're on a mission from God.'"

JJ:

And we loved these guys, didn't we?

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #8

"Poobah" wrote:

"Yep, if God is calling one would think that it would be to do something to help the folks who are in the middle of a disaster, not try to get as many of their children as you can and leave the country."

JJ:

If I were one of those kids I would want to get out of that God forsaken area. The Dominican Republic would seem like paradise.

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #9

JJ:

Lefties posting here who have in the strongest terms criticized the Idaho Ten for following their calling must have been extremely upset if they watched David Letterman tonight. There on this liberal bastion Saints quarterback Drew Brees announced to the world that he joined the Saints because he felt a calling to do it. Here we have a winning quarterback following a calling to join what?

The Saints.

Do I here calls of condemnation of this guy as we do the Idaho Ten?

On top of that the New Orleans team is called the Saints. They might as well call themselves The Christians.

Will the Left ever watch Letterman again?

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #10

Ms Stutheit writes:

"Gosh, Mr. Limbaugh signs a $400 million contract in 2008 and he makes such a glaring mistake, blaming a Democrat president for something a Republican president did? (speaking which president signed the 55 MPH limit)."

JJ:

I googled this every which way but loose and the only thing that comes up of Limbaugh saying this was Stutheit's letter. I do not recall Rush ever saying this and would guess that Ms Stutheit doesn't even listen to Rush but received this message by hearsay. As usual this accuser does not give any quote but just a statement of possible misinterpretation.

I lived through this era and since I was driving around 50,000 miles a year was strongly affected by it. Nixon did sign it with no enthusiasm as I recall but it was promoted by a Democratic Congress. After Carter became President a lot of Republicans wanted to repeal it but Carter and the Democrats in Congress insisted it remain.

This is one reason that many to this day associate the 55 MPH speed limit more with Carter than Nixon.

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #11

"Flatline" wrote::

"When 'Joseph732' [JJ] is the voice of reason on these pages...that's sayin' something."

JJ:

I think that's the nicest thing you've ever said about me. I don't know what to say...

"Flatline":

"But, after all, they're learning from the greatest hate propagandist yet produced by the human race: Rush. They just don't get it. When their lies about Carter and the 55 mph speed limit are exposed, they still refuse to own up."

JJ:

If Rush did say that Carter started the 55 speed limit then it was a mistake and not a lie as you generously accuse. BUT, I cannot find any evidence that he even made this mistake. Generally, any mistake he makes is posted all over the Internet so the fact that I can't find any such quote gives strong evidence that this accusation is only wishful thinking.

And speaking of mistakes. Obama just pronounced "corpsman" as "corpse-man" rather than "cor-man." I call this a mistake, but you evidently would accuse Obama of lying about the pronunciation.

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #12

"Cherenkov" wrote:

"Nixon actually wanted the national speed limit to be 50 mph for automobiles, remember that? But he did sign enthusiastically, I remember it vividly."

JJ:

You are right that Nixon did initiate the thing. He did so with an executive order. I do not recall that he wanted a speed limit of 50 MPH. If true it just gives me one more reason not like him. His wage and price controls were bad enough. After the crisis was over the Democratic Congress passed legislation that continued the limitation. I remember clearly the Democratic argument that it would not only save gas, but it was for our own good for safety reasons. Unfortunately, some Republicans went along with this.

Thank God we are close to being back where we used to be with the speed limit.

Free at last!

  

Feb 8, 2010 -- Post #13

"Cherenkov":

"Joseph, I know you probably won't like this part, but it was Clinton who signed legislation finally permitting removal of all federal control of speed limits with the National Highway System Designation Act of 1995."

JJ:

It was Reagan and Steve Symms that first got the limit raised in rural areas and then a Republican congress that did the rest in 1995. Clinton smelled the coffee and signed it. The majority of Democrats in Congress supported the 55 MPH limit all the time it was in force.

  

Feb 9, 2010 -- Post #1

JJ:

The [US Constitution] First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law abridging [...] the freedom of speech, or of the press."

There is nothing in the Constitution limiting the free speech of corporations or any other entity. In fact it guarantees free speech to corporations that are media that give us the written or spoke word. This is currently accomplished through the big corporations using the media such as the New York Times, NBC, CBS, ABC, Fox and many others.

Why should a corporation that does not have a printing press or broadcasting studio be denied their Constitutional rights?

After all, corporations are composed of people of both parties who just want to be heard like the rest of us.

In the 2008 Presidential campaign Obama raised $750 million (much of it though the help of fat cats). John McCain raised $370 million. Now, which party is it that's trying to "buy" elections?

Is the Left just afraid of real fairness?

  

Feb 9, 2010 -- Post #2

"GimmeShelter":

"You think PACs [Political Action Committees] have the interests of Americans in mind? A corporation exists to make a profit."

JJ:

And you think the big corporate media who exists for profit do have our interests in mind any more than any other corporation? Yet you are happy to allow them to have all the free speech they want to promote whoever they want.

  

"GimmeShelter":

"Let's assume he 'loads' the court with left-leaning judges. Those judges overrule the recent decision. Then, the right will cry about a court engaged in social engineering."

JJ:

The only thing that bothers me is rulings that are obviously unconstitutional such as the taking away of our most basic right of free speech. To say taking away free speech is going to the middle is so outlandish that it is beyond belief, but that's where the consciousness of the Left is today. The extreme of the extreme is seen as the middle.

  

Feb 9, 2010 -- Post #3

JJ:

I wonder if Mr. Pauls has the same attitude toward his own budget as he does toward the government's. In tough times when he has less money does he still want to spend more rather than tighten his belt?

Why do Lefties thinks we can just continue to tax and spend with no limits? No matter how far we go they never see a ceiling. They will just not smell the coffee until the ceiling hits them on the head.

  

Feb 9, 2010 -- Post #4

"Badnana":

"Not all corporations are American, but under this new ruling, foreign corporations will be able to participate, manipulate and pull strings to make their way to more power, money, and greed. How do you rectify that part?"

JJ:

That's easy to rectify because you are not correct.

Current Federal Law 2 U.S.C. 441e(b)(3) -- prevents "a partnership, association, corporation, organization, or other combination of persons organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in a foreign country" from making "directly or indirectly" a donation or expenditure "in connection with a Federal, State, or local election," to a political party committee or "for an electioneering communication."

To further close loopholes the Federal Election Commission regulations say that a foreign national cannot "direct, dictate, control, or directly or indirectly participate in the decision-making process" for spending money for political purposes, a principle that could keep the critics' worst-case scenario from coming true.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2010/jan/27/ barack-obama/obama-says-supreme-court-ruling-allows-foreign-com/

  

Feb 9, 2010 -- Post #5

"GimmeShelter" wrote:

"Okay, Joe. Let's give corporations the same right as citizens. One vote. Limit the amount that one individual (or corporation) can donate to their favorite candidate. I cannot give a million dollars to a candidate, right? So why should a business or PAC be allowed to do that?"

JJ:

First and foremost this is unconstitutional. Again the First Amendment says:

"Congress shall make no law abridging [...] the freedom of speech, or of the press."

As soon as we start messing with this and violating it then all kinds of unfairness surfaces. Financing in the last election was hardly fair with Obama taking in $750 million and McCain only $370. This does not count all the "527 money" [tax exempt campaign money raised under United States tax code, 26 U.S.C. 527] spent on promoting Obama.

If we just follow the Constitution and not make any law prohibiting free speech then the political system will be a fair as it can possibly be.

  

Feb 9, 2010 -- Post #6

JJ:

Obama had a lot of help from big money interests.

Nearly 100 wealthy families and power couples contributed at least $100,000 each to help Barack Obama over the past two years, creating an elite set of donors to whom the president-elect repeatedly turned in financing his campaign, transition and inauguration, a "Washington Post" analysis shows.

The 94 couples and families in the $100,000 group gave a combined $14.4 million. Of those who bundled donations, six each raised half a million dollars or more.

The ability to direct such large sums to a presidential candidate stems in part from the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign finance legislation. The law banned unlimited "soft money" donations, but it increased the amount individuals can steer to presidential candidates by allowing them to donate directly to a campaign as well as to state and national political parties to help elect a candidate.

Under the law, the maximum amount an individual can give in a presidential election year has gone from $25,000 to $70,100 over the past five years. And by creating joint fundraising committees -- allowing donors to give the maximum to all three funding pools at once -- campaigns have become much more efficient in collecting the donations.

http://funderscommittee.org/resource/the_donors_who_gave_big_and_often

  

Feb 10, 2010

"Socialist" wrote:

"My mother is also deaf, she is not a victim, she leads a wonderful life and lets nothing get in her way!"

JJ:

Another person who is totally deaf is Rush Limbaugh. He doesn't allow a thing like that to slow him down. I do not understand why the deaf need our tax money. I can understand recordings for the blind. No amount of money will help the deaf unless we pay for cochlear implants like Rush has -- which is kind of pricey.

  

"GrayMatter":

"I am guessing you are 100 percent supportive of all government funding of deaf communication devices, special education, interpreter services in any situation, and closed captioning services be immediately cut.

"After all, we all have to sacrifice."

JJ:

The networks, producers and cable services pay for enough closed captioning that there is no need for the government to spend money on this. Educating a deaf person should not cost any more than educating a person with good hearing. Communication devices do not cost that much.

  

The following are replies from JJ posted in response to "Gimmeshelter's" suggested new tax list:

"Hamburger tax: 10 percent luxury tax on fatty foods and/or fast foods -- to help the budget and reduce obesity?"

JJ:  Let's skip that and make pot legal and charge a 100 percent tax instead. That way the poor Lefties will pay their fair share.

  

"Whine tax: Every time a teacher complains about his/her salary, they pay 1 percent of their earnings. Solves two problems."

JJ:  Not a bad idea.

  

"Useless politics tax: Every day the legislature is extended, the local polls pay 1 percent of their annual back to the state. There's no reason to linger if you're not doin' anything, fellas."

JJ:  Again not bad. We should apply this to Congress also.

  

"Cowboy hat tax: Increase at least 500 percent."

JJ:  No go on this. Let's have a cross dressing tax instead. Again, this will help the Lefties pay their own way.

  

"Better-than-Thou tax: Anyone caught claiming moral superiority because of their religious affiliation will be charged $1,000 and shipped out of state."

JJ:  Sounds good. That way the Obama and "global warming groupies" will no longer irritate us.

  

"Unsupported facts tax: Payable by Joseph [JJ]."

JJ:  Since I support my facts this will not produce revenue. How about a Joseph unfounded attack tax, taxing those who attack me? We'll charge $100 apiece and bring in lots of money.

  

"Mangled language tax: $50 fine for every misspelled exterior business sign."

JJ:  No go. Businesses need capital. Instead let's charge a bureaucrat interference tax.

  

"Cell [phone] in the car tax: $500 or the loss of one arm. Your choice."

JJ:  Let's add to that a "Lefty in the car tax," since they love taxes so much.

  

"A Glenn Beck tax: $100 for every distortion, obfuscation and outright lie told."

JJ:  That's fine as long as we also charge his critics $50 for each of their distortions and lies about Glenn. This would produce a thousand times the revenue.