2010-3-10 05:19:00
Walt Thode wrote:
"Is this what Republicans have become? In reports of a national survey of around 2,000 self-identified Republicans (conducted by non-partisan Research 2000), here is the percent who:
"- Say President Obama should be impeached: 39.
- Say Obama is a socialist: 63.
- Believe Obama was not born in the U.S.: 36.
- Think Obama wants the terrorists to win: 24.
- Believe ACORN stole the '08 election: 21.
- Believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama: 53.
- Think Obama is a racist who hates whites: 31.
- Would like their state to secede from the USA: 23."
JJ:
Walt has the gall to say that the poll he mentioned is non-partisan. Does he not realize the poll was conducted by the most partisan group on the web -- The Daily Kos?
Just to show you how partisan they are they took another poll just before the Massachusetts election and it favored Coakley winning by 67 percent to Brown's 32 percent. Is that divorced from reality or what?
http://www.dailykos.com/poll/1263527692_JBMPTFfv
Their Reasearch 2000 poll was also way off, predicting a dead heat whereas all other polls predicted a more accurate substantial Brown victory. Obviously their polling is not very accurate.
http://www.dailykos.com/statepoll/2010/1/17/MA/429
Then one thing they did not have the guts to include was Democrats. They should have asked them the same questions. The results would have been embarrassing.
"TimT":
"The Daily Kos published the poll results of self-identified Republicans on their site but the poll was taken by Research 2000 which is a non-partisan multi-faceted polling company. The results of the polling are consistent with the public statements of both Republican leadership and rank and file."
JJ:
Research 2000 is used by Lefties because they get the results they want. Check this out:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/75923-
research-2000-poll-has-coakley-up-49-41
There is one ingredient in that Daily Kos poll that is way off more than other points which is this: (Republicans) Believe Sarah Palin is more qualified to be president than Obama: 53 percent. I think the number is closer to 100 percent. Even a lot of Democrats are starting to like her.
"Boisentv" wrote:
"Yes, Mr. Edison put a lot of candle makers and street light attendants out of work, but the change to electric power brings us all the comforts we enjoy today. Live in the past and starve, or embrace the future and thrive, that's the real choice here."
JJ:
You must be talking about Lefties here. They are the ones who have opposed nuclear power, which has set back clean energy production 30 years in this country. About 90 percent of carbon dioxide (C02) savings has been through nuclear power. The Right also supports other alternatives that make sense. They support windmills off Cape Cod while the Kennedy family is filing lawsuits to stop them.
Obama has cut off funding for a return to the moon where we could mine Helium 3. Small amounts of this could provide clean power for the entire country -- but no! The Left is standing in the way of clean energy once again and concentrating in areas that have little effect.
Have they checked their powers to reason with the Halls of Congress?
"Domer":
"I don't know about the worst president in history, but I do know Bush was the worst in my lifetime. Carter was a failure, no doubt. But GW wins going away."
JJ:
Life was terrific during the Bush Administration compared to the Carter years where even the liberal press created a "Misery Index."
"Domer":
"When Obama took office, the economy was going into the crapper. So, what to do? Let the economic cycle takes it's natural course with no government intervention or take some sort of action? The latter was the choice of Obama and the only decision any president could make."
JJ:
Nothing wrong with taking action but the pork barrel spending and political give-aways did more harm than good. The recovery would be further along if Obama had done nothing.
"Badnana":
"You joined the sock puppet poll? Are you getting messages from God? Where do you get your drugs?"
JJ:
"Jim83686":
"Funny that a poll by a non-partisan organization would have such leading questions. How about a poll of Democrats and their views on socialism?"
JJ:
Actually Gallup just did one. 53 percent of Democrats have a positive view of socialism and only that same percentage like capitalism. Sounds like about half the Democrats think they would be happier in Cuba.
Unlike the one-sided Daily Kos poll they also polled Republicans with the same question.
http://blogs.philadelphiaweekly.com/politics/2010/02/05/
gallup-poll-democrats-love-socialism/
"Cherenkov" wrote:
"Nuclear power construction became simply too expensive a risk in the '70's and '80's. In those days a typical nuclear plant finished at 3 to 5 times its planned construction cost. Further, there were ugly quality control problems. Three plants I know of built at enormous cost could not get licensed to operate because of QC flaws."
JJ:
The costs of nuclear power plants skyrocketed sometimes as much as 1000 percent because of lawsuits and outrageous standards of construction set by Leftist activists. The flaws in the unfinished plants were mostly imaginary.
The time from ground breaking to operational testing of a nuclear power plant was increased from 42 months in 1967, to 54 months in 1972, to 70 months in 1980, to almost 20 years from the planning to the opening of the Seabrook plant. The last nuclear power plant to come on line was the Watts I in Tennessee, in which construction began in 1973 and finally finished in 1996, taking a monstrous 23 years to complete.
"Badnana":
"Environmental concerns enrage all conservatives."
JJ:
Wrong. Using the environment to attack capitalism while doing nothing for the environment is what aggravates them as well as Libertarians as myself. "Cap and trade" [emissions trading] is a prime example -- something costly that will do more harm than good.
If you really want to help the environment oppose Obama on cutting moon exploration so we can obtain pollution free Helium-3 [He-3] that can fuel the country with no radioactive waste. Instead, we are making a half-hearted effort toward solar which is only available 30-40 percent of the time at best because of lack of sun.
JJ:
Mud, interesting story. You seem to be mistaking capitalists for anarchists. Capitalists do see a place for government, but limited to that which is not practical for private enterprise.
I think we could put a system in place that would take care of people in a helpless situation as you found yourself and it would cost less than we are now spending.
It's a shame that the national debt limit under Obama has gone from 10 trillion to over 14 trillion and still no funds to take care of the really down and out. Money spent for survival helps the economy much better than spending many millions on an old Indian trail, among other things.
JJ:
In a previous post I said, "The costs of nuclear power plants skyrocketed sometimes as much as 1000% because of lawsuits and outrageous standards of construction set by Leftist activists. The flaws in the unfinished plants were mostly imaginary."
To this "Cherenkov" wrote:
"Don't make a fool of yourself. You simply don't know what you are talking about. This was my profession for 37 years."
JJ:
Then you should know I am correct. Here are some stats on nuclear power plants:
Shoreharn, New York
Original estimated cost: $242 million.
Actual cost: $4 billion (a sixteen fold increase).
Diablo Canyon, California
Original estimated cost: $450 million.
Actual cost: $4.4 billion (a tenfold increase).
Midland, Michigan
Original estimated cost: $267 million.
Actual cost: $4.4 billion (a sixteen fold increase).
Marble Hill, Indiana
Original estimated cost: $1.4 billion.
Actual cost: $7 billion, before being abandoned.
Seabrook
Original estimated cost: $850 million.
Actual cost: $7 billion.
So, are you still supportive of the nuclear power industry?
http://www.idahostatesman.com/letters/story/1078694.html?qwxq=
3692578&pageNum=5&mi_pluck_action=page_nav#Comments_Container
Mr. Bowden says:
"There is no way the framers of the Constitution could ever have foreseen future court action that determined the idiotic and insane proposition that corporations and labor unions have the same rights as human beings. Had the framers foreseen this idiotic proposition, they would have added three words to 'Congress should make no law abridging the freedom of speech by human beings.'"
JJ:
The last I heard corporations are people and all speech from them is from people. The Constitution did not say "free speech applies except..." There were no exceptions.
Larry Lindstrom says:
"Our government is lending a Brazilian oil exploration company $2 billion (our tax money) to develop offshore oil fields, in which George Soros owns a large number of shares, with all the oil contracted to China."
JJ:
Have we gone mad? This should even alarm the Left wing posters on this forum.
"Blarney":
"Mr. Lindstrom, it is impossible to take anything you say seriously when you so willingly repeat ridiculous claims from an email that has been debunked by several sources. You then think you're clever using the phrase 'connecting the dots.' Gee, parroted straight out of the email. Sorry, you have no standing with people who are relatively intelligent. Please go back to the sandbox and play with all your gullible buddies."
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/09/bogus-brazilian-oil-claims/
JJ:
Did you read your own fact check reference? It confirms everything Lindstrom says except it doesn't say what percentage of the oil China will receive. They will definitely get a large portion.
JJ:
Tim Teater misses the point of the purpose of the Tea Party. Overspending and high taxes are the main ingredients that unites them and why anyone would hate them for such a purpose is an amazing thing. Our overspending creates a thousand times the problem as money donated to advance free speech -- as long as all are free to speak.
"Cherenkov":
"To Ray Bowden and Larry Lindstrom:
"The Bill of Rights gives us the right to free speech, but contains no right to be heard, per se."
JJ:
No one on the Right is asking for the right to be heard. That's what Bill Maher wanted when he expected advertisers to pay him to speak insults. Free speech allows you to pay for your own speech. It's the Left that wants the Right to be heard when they want others to pay for their speech.
"Cherenkov":
"You are not making sense."
JJ:
Let me explain the difference between the right of free speech which is in the Constitution and the right to be heard which is not.
The Constitution guarantees the right to free speech which means that all those under its umbrella have the right to say anything they want whenever they want. They can also pay anyone they want to speak for them or to publish their words.
The only restriction's of free speech comes from lawsuits for damages or treason against the country or its constitutional laws.
In all acts of free speech citizens are free to listen or not listen or to accept or reject the words.
A corporation buying an ad has no right to be heard because it is paying for its own communication of speech and all are free to not listen.
Those who think they have a right to be heard believe that others should pay for them to deliver their speech or that some people must be forced to read or hear their words.
"Badnana":
"Where are you getting the idea that the Left would like someone to pay for their speech or to be force people to listen? That is incredibly inflammatory without any basis in fact. You are really twisting to make a case that has no merit."
JJ:
As I said a good example of someome demanding the right to be heard was Bill Maher. He said a lot of things that pushed advertiser support to the edge, but when he called the 911 hijackers courageous that placed them over the edge and they refused to pay for his speech they did not like.
After he lost his job he was hired by HBO that didn't rely on advertisers and many times Bill complained to his guests from the Left how outrageous it was that he was denied free speech. All these guests without exception agreed with him.
In other words, Bill and his associates all thought the advertisers should have been forced to pay Bill to speak that which they did not want to hear. That would be forcing a right to be heard.
The same thing happened with the Dixie Chicks. Because fans used their free will and did not want to listen to them any more because of offensive speech, they withdrew their support and didn't want to buy their records or listen to them on the media any more.
The Dixie Chicks and many leftists complained their free speech rights were violated.
It appears the only way the Left could have been satisfied here was if fans were forced to listen to the Dixie Chicks and forced to buy their records. They thought they had a right to be heard by those who did not want to listen.
On the other hand when a more conservative person like Don Imus gets fired for something offensive, that is fine with the Left. Conservatives have no right to be heard in their minds as does the Left.
"Badnana":
"Super totally ridiculous!! You are thinking of Carrie Prejean. She is confused about free speech, not the Dixie Chicks, not Bill Maher. I cannot, for the life of me, fathom how you twist things so. Happy Valentine's day."
JJ:
So then, I take it that you agree with Maher that advertisers should be forced to pay for him to speak that which they do not wish to hear? Do I understand you correctly? If not then what is your view of the Maher situation? How could his free speech be violated because advertisers do not want to pay for him?
"Badnana":
"Never once did Bill Maher claim to have his free speech violated. You are thinking of that empty vessel, Carrie Prejean. That was her misunderstanding of free speech. You do not understand me, or free speech, for that matter. Maher NEVER claimed his free speech was violated. Give it up."
JJ:
You must not watch his show. He complained about it numerous times. Carrie never expected anyone to pay her for offensive speech. She merely answered a question.
"Cherenkov" wrote:
"What about the bogus claim that 'our tax money' is being loaned."
JJ:
The Import Export bank is a Federal bank which means that it was created, financed and supported with our tax dollars. Any profit it makes would also belong to the taxpayer. When it loans out money from profits this money still belongs to the taxpayers.
"Cherenkov":
"Also, the article states the 200,000 bbls. per day contracted to China will be a small portion, not a 'large portion' as you claim, nor 'all the oil' as Lindstrom states."
JJ:
Sounds like a pretty big amount to me. You think they are taking a small portion after investing $10 billion?
JJ:
A letter published in my local paper caused me concern. I was surprised that I had not heard of this before. It reads:
"President Obama amended Executive Order 12425 to allow Interpol (International Police) operation rights within the United States. This was originally signed by Ronald Reagan, giving certain privileges, exemptions and immunities for Interpol to operate here with some restrictions. The Obama amendment cancels these restrictions.
"Interpol is an enforcement arm of the U.N.'s International Criminal Court (ICC) and if these initial reports about the amendment are correct, we can be transported beyond our country to be tried for pretended offenses.
"One of the grievances outlined in our Declaration of Independence from Britain was 'He (the king) has combined with others to subject us to jurisdiction foreign to our Constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws.'
"If we lump this together with profiling innocent people instead of known terrorists, appointment of 30 unaccountable czars the past year, government takeover of banks and companies, stimulus money from the government, out-of-control spending, we have the beginning of totalitarianism.
"Joseph W. Felts, Boise
The response from readers so far is to ridicule him as being a right-winger concerned over nothing spreading lies.
This was my response:
Executive order 12425 says "in order to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities to the International Criminal Police Organization (INTERPOL), it is hereby ordered that Executive Order 12425 of June 16, 1983, as amended, is further amended by deleting from the first sentence the words "except those provided by Section 2(c), Section 3, Section 4, Section 5, and Section 6 of that Act" and the semicolon that immediately precedes them.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/executive-order-
amending-executive-order-12425
This clearly says that the purpose of this order is "to extend the appropriate privileges, exemptions, and immunities" to INTERPOL.
What are these privileges and immunities?
Those granted that most concerns citizens is 2(c) which reads:
"Property and assets of international organizations, wherever located and by whomsoever held, shall be immune from search, unless such immunity be expressly waived, and from confiscation. The archives of international organizations shall be inviolable."
This will allow INTERPOL to operate in absolute secrecy beyond the power of the Freedom of Information Act. No one will have power to search their records or archives. If the President or foreign powers want to keep something beyond the reach of he American people they just need to turn it over to INTERPOL. If INTERPOL did not have U.S. interests at heart they could protect terrorist suspects by hiding information in INTERPOL vaults.
It will be very dangerous to individual rights to have a law enforcement agency not controlled by our government with the power to operate in secret.
National Review added this comment:
"Specifically, Interpol's property and assets remained (before the executive order) subject to search and seizure, and its archived records remained subject to public scrutiny under provisions like the Freedom of Information Act. Being constrained by the Fourth Amendment, FOIA, and other limitations of the Constitution and federal law that protect the liberty and privacy of Americans is what prevents law-enforcement and its controlling government authority from becoming tyrannical."
It looks to me that the concerns of Mr. Felts (who is not me) and others has some validity.
(End of my response.)
If any readers here have any other light or thoughts on this I'd be happy to hear it.
JJ:
I think that if Public TV were discontinued that the popular shows for kids would be replaced by something as good or better by commercial TV. There was a need for it a generation ago, but not much now. Wherever there is a need that need will be filled by some commercial interest. Public TV fulfills the need for educational TV for kids so there is not much incentive for commercial TV to jump in.
As for the other educational shows Public TV is not as interesting as National Geographic, Discovery, and the History Channel -- and there are plenty of news sources now -- especially with the Internet.
In addition, when anything with political implications are involved the conservative view gets the shaft. Why should Otter support Public TV when his side gets no positive coverage? Have you ever seen a global warming skeptic interviewed there? Not!
First quoting JJ, "Thirteen_Times_Two" wrote:
"When anything with political implications are involved the conservative view gets the shaft...."
"Thirteen_Times_Two" then writes:
"Maybe if they had anything of value to say instead of mindless, inflammatory rhetoric, intelligent people would listen."
JJ:
The trouble is any view, no matter how gently put forward is seen as inflammatory by the Left if it disagrees with their dogma. Most global warming skeptics, for example, have great ideas and are very cool and calm in their presentation -- but that gets them nowhere on public media we are forced to support.
"Bsu_Football" writes:
"Joseph, I wish it were true that Discovery, History and National Geographic channels had quality scientific and educational programming, but lately they are few and far between. Now it's mostly reality shows like Swamp Loggers, Deadliest Catch, Ice Truckers, etc."
JJ:
Yes, I don't watch those shows either, but public TV also has a lot of mindless stuff on it as well. On the other hand, there are a lot of good things on paid channels. Right now I am watching a series on the planets that is a lot better than anything I've seen on IPTV lately.
"Gimmeshelter" sarcastically wrote:
"Throw out the Supreme Court and hire Dick Cheney to distribute justice."
JJ:
You might be on to something there.
"Gimmeshelter":
"Let's just privatize everything, okay? Start with the military. Blackwater could do as well. Throw out the Supreme Court and hire Dick Cheney to distribute justice. Set up toll booths at every corner. Too bad if you can't afford to drive anymore -- we don't want to have to pay for your roads. Pay your way or walk. Have the churches run the schools. We don't need no high skool or kolleges when the last Good Book was ritten over 2,000 years ago. Get rid of the police and fire departments."
JJ:
Why are you rambling on attempting to demonize conservatives by portraying them as something they are not advocating or even thinking about? Talk about a completely deceptive straw man. If I did the same thing with liberals my post would be flagged.
"Run" says:
"Why do conservatives always tout the power of the free-market, while at the same time lamenting how it can't beat out publicly-financed operations like IPTV?"
JJ:
The opposite is true. Where have you been? We have always said that if something like this is not propped up by public funds that the private sector can do better.
"Run":
"Come on now, if you're claiming that the almighty free-market will take the place of IPTV if it should disappear, then why hasn't it happened already?"
JJ:
If the government is passing out free apples to all then who is going to go in the business of selling apples? Kids educational programs would appear on commercial TV if Public TV did not exist. And as far as adult education goes, there is already a lot more quality stuff on the commercial stations.
"Camerafan":
"Not everyone can afford cable TV."
JJ:
Within a few years TV over the regular airwaves will disappear and everyone will either be on cable, satellite or some type of computer connection. Any propping up of Public TV for the sake of being on the airwaves will be temporary.
Nick says:
"Does anybody else think it's strange that our government would spend $2.5 million on a census commercial during the Super Bowl?"
JJ:
Not strange or unusual at all when bureaucrats are given our tax money. They are like lottery winners who just spend mindlessly.
"Cherenkov":
"As to why bureaucrats mindlessly spend our so called tax payer money like drunken sailors... It's because it isn't tax payer money. Or at least it doesn't seem like it. While our taxes are going down, our borrowing from China, Japan, UK, and OPEC countries, is going up."
JJ:
And how is borrowed money paid back? Through the taxpayers of course. You should be aware of this.
"Cherenkov":
"Thus it has been seemingly painless to spend. Both parties are equally free with the spending. One has the reputation of tax and spend, while the other has the reputation of borrow and spend. I think tax and spend is more honest. You?"
JJ:
Spending is too painless for them. We agree on that. Though both parties are guilty of mismanaging our money the Democrats are now making record advances in taxing, borrowing and spending.
"Cherenkov" wrote:
"Oh, pulleese. You are talking theory. In reality, the money will never be paid back. What you should have said is that tax revenue pays the ever increasing interest. Sad as it is, we borrow that too."
JJ:
You're saying that it is only theory that loans are to be paid back? if other Lefties agree with you then that explains a lot. I can now understand why Obama is happy to borrow endlessly. He thinks he will never have to pay it back. The joke's on the Chinese. HA! HA! HA! HA!
What's that I hear?
The Chinese are not laughing.
"Gimmeshelter" wrote:
"Joe: Did you really mean to say that I am demonizing repubs for wanting to privatize everything? Did you go on to say that is something they have 'never thought about'?"
JJ:
Yes, I meant what I said. I do not know any establishment Republicans who want to privatize the military, set up toll booths at every corner, have churches run public schools and get rid of the police and fire departments as you said.
I'd like to know where the Republicans were that are advocating the things you accuse in your wild imagination.
"Gimmeshelter":
"Hmmmm? I seem to remember your rant about how useless IPTV has become. How about King George proposing we turn social security over to the stock market? Or, unending ideas about selling off public land? Or, turning over military ops to private companies, like Blackwater, Haliburton, et al?"
JJ:
Those are all different subjects that you mention and have some merit. Using some private companies for certain projects is a totally different matter than privatizing the entire military as you accused earlier. Even Obama continues this.
There is not space here to discuss all you bring up.
"Gimmeshelter":
"Repubs have been very consistent in their demands that government get out of governing. Can you name just one thing that you feel our government can do better than a private company? Hmmm? Probably not."
JJ:
Yes, handle our defense as specified in the Constitution. Also, as imperfect as it is, we need them to make the laws that govern this nation. The people though need to make the majority voice more strongly heard so the laws represent them.
Copyright © 2010 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved