2009-11-10 05:09:00
JJ:
What's wrong with us, Ms Clements asks?
My question is what is wrong with her?
To equate people who disagree with Obama with those who supported the death of Martin Luther King or having anything to do with race is an insult.
If Obama were white, brown or red and promoted his current programs he would get the same resistance. All but a very small handful of dissidents are interested in what he does, not the color of his skin. Do you see any conservatives or libertarians complaining about a black man heading the Republican party?
She says: "If we don't join forces we will fall together."
I'm sure she had this belief during the Bush administration also, right?
What's that I hear...? Bush was unworthy of our support -- and Obama is worthy enough to replace God in the [song] "Battle Hymn of the Republic" as announced by the singing of our children.
We can also fall together by uniting behind bad ideas as evidenced by history.
Mr. Lazdins says:
"In 10 years, there will be no Republican Party. We will have Democrats and independents. Citizens are starting to notice that the Republican Party leadership is positioned as a lobby for corporate interests and that they couldn't care less about the damage they do to the people."
JJ:
Dream on.
Obama's ratings are sinking like a rock and support for his health care plan has dipped to around 45%. Over 85% are satisfied with their current coverage.
Thanks to the Left pushing legislation that runs contrary to the people's will Republican fundraising is now going through the roof and people are looking forward to change again. Many just wish it could be now instead of 2010.
And talk about being in bed with Big business. The "Cap and Trade" program is one of the most egregious sell-outs to them in history. Then too Obama is taking over some big business creating what has been called National Socialism.
"Camerafan" wrote:
"I, for one, agree. If you don't agree with our President on valid issues that's fine. But how far do one's comments have to go; i.e. 'racist slumbag' before they should be considered 'treasonous'?"
JJ:
You guys are like the pot calling the kettle black. I have been called about every name there is since I have been on the forum. The Left here ought to clean up its own act and then maybe they could have some justification in criticizing others for name calling.
"Camerafan" wrote:
"Calling others names is on this post is common when someone disagrees. However, you don't apparently see the difference between calling fellow posters names and calling our President Obama terrible names and wishing him ill. I don't need to call you a name. I don't read your tomes every day. Do you really think 'racist slumbag' is appropriate for our Pres.?"
JJ:
It's against my personal code to call anyone names. For instance, if I think someone is not telling he truth I will not blurt out that they are a liar but will take their statements and prove they are not true. The reader can then formulate for himself if they are a liar or not. Since I have been posting here many have called me a liar without a shred of evidence. It is bad taste to call someone a liar with evidence and much worse to call him one without it. The furthest I will go is to say: "that statement is a lie." To call the person himself a name indicates that his whole being is that name which is very negative in my view.
You have attacked me regularly "Camerfan," but to your credit I do not recall you using name-calling.
JJ:
Now we have another (Mr. Schultz) who, who says that if we disagree with something Obama does it's because he's black and we are racist. You'd think this tired, unimaginative, stereotyping, mean spirited and false accusation would have run its course decades ago.
Remember stories about slaveholders who would accuse blacks unjustly because it just seemed to their imagination and prejudices that they were guilty? Well, these accusers are doing this same thing, making guilty judgments of racism, which are completely unfounded.
A lot more people voted for Obama because he is black than against him for this reason. Parents would have the same concern over Obama speaking to our schoolchildren no matter what race he is.
Ronalee, by the way, wrote a great letter on this subject. I didn't realize this was the first widely televised speech by a president to our kids.
"Csmith147" wrote:
"You make a good point but my have your head in the sand, just take a look at the number of racist cartoons, etc., flying around the internet. Racisim is alive and well."
JJ:
How is my head in the sand when I am aware that racism exists. I don't seek out racists' sites so I probably miss the cartoons you speak of but there is a portion of the population composed of both Republicans and Democrats that did not vote for Obama because he is black. On the other hand, there is a percentage of both parties that voted for him because he is black. This percentage, I believe, to be much greater than the first.
Quoting JJ, "TWall" first wrote:
"'A lot more people voted for Obama because he is black than against him for this reason.'"
"TWall" then continued with:
"Do you have any proof of this?"
JJ:
We do not have polling data on the population as a whole but we do know that around 95% of blacks voted for Obama and that's not just because he was a Democrat because when it came to voting between Hillary and Obama the blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama -- again close to 90%. Since they had a similar ideology the only reason for the overwhelming percentage was because of race.
Even though I do not have concrete proof on whites voting for race I have heard many Obama voters and media people gleefully express enthusiasm about voting for the first black president, without any mention of the policies they favor.
I've never encountered anyone who said they would not vote for Obama because he is black, but have heard many who voted against Obama express positive feelings that we have made enough civil progress to elect a black president.
JJ:
Al Baun makes a good point in that many of our goals should not be conservative or liberal. Unfortunately, many of them are seen as such and the method of dealing with them is certainly different. Let's look at Al's points:
Al:
"Since when is staying in school and doing well a conservative or liberal message?"
JJ:
Both sides want this but the liberal solution is to simply put more money into the system. Conservatives take a more progressive approach of wanting more accountability and creating a voucher system and charter schools which will give parents more choice and force schools to become more competitive.
Al:
"Since when is freedom of speech a conservative or liberal message?"
JJ:
Both sides claim to want it but the liberals only want freedom for their own speech. Many of them would shut down Fox News in a minute if they had the chance. The conservatives again are more progressive wanting freedom for everyone's speech, even for those with whom they disagree.
Al:
"Since when is wanting a strong military and defense a conservative or liberal message?"
JJ:
Since after Vietnam this issue has belonged to the conservatives and the liberals tend to want a smaller military. Conservatives believe in "Peace Through Strength."
Al:
"Since when is wanting a strong health care system a conservative or liberal message?"
JJ:
Both want a strong health care system but the liberals want more government control and financing and the conservatives less.
Al:
"Since when is wanting the ability to protect oneself a conservative or liberal message?"
JJ:
As far as the right to own firearms this belongs to the conservatives and the liberals always want more restraints. Liberals also seem more concerned about a criminal's rights than the victim.
Al:
"Since when is wanting a strong and fair economy a conservative or liberal message?"
JJ:
Both sides claim to want this but a strong and sustained economy is impossible if liberals get their way for they will always overspend and increase taxes.
A strong economy is possible if conservatives (not necessarily Republicans) get their way of fewer taxes and regulations with a balanced budget.
Is it any wonder that about twice as many people (according to Gallup) describe themselves a conservative than liberal.
See:
http://afrocityblog.wordpress.com/2009/06/15/new-gallup-poll-going-the-conservative-route/
JJ:
Ilana Rubels says that [Idaho Senator (R) Mike] Crapo knows there is no such proposal before Congress for the government to takeover health insurance.
The technicality of the truth of this may be argued either way, but the intent behind this is surely aimed at a takeover.
For one thing, a government plan does not compete against private plans but has full power to dominate them because they have the backing of our tax dollars not available to private companies. Canada is a good example of this takeover happening in several steps.
Then Obama admits his goal is to establish a takeover even if it takes several steps. He stated:
"So what I believe is we should set up a series of choices. [...] Over time it may be that we end up transitioning to such a system (single payer). For now, I just want to make sure every American is covered...." (Seniors Town Hall, Ames, Iowa, January 5, 2008)
Obviously, anyone who has studied the situation is not convinced there will be no takeover.
"CrimeProf" wrote:
"Capital punishment is 2-5 times more expensive than a life sentence. Most sentences or convictions are overturned. Idaho has only had one execution in the last 50+ years. This is another failed crime control policy."
JJ:
Can you give me hard facts on the percentages of those sentenced to death who are found innocent? I do not think it would be close to the majority as you indicate.
What fails us is the expensive legal system, not the death penalty. The only reason that the death penalty costs more than life in prison is the bungling legal system stimulated by do-gooders that do more harm than good. All that the death penalty should cost is a few cents for a bullet or poison.
20 or more years in prison is much more cruel than the death penalty and there is no way you can get that lost time back either if you are found innocent.
JJ:
The wolves I am concerned about are those in sheep's clothing in Washington.
"Bulegila55":
"Just as an aside: How many times do you check under the bed before you go to sleep at night?"
JJ:
About as often as you float down from the clouds of illusion and check in with true reality.
JJ:
Great points Gary. When it comes to using fear as a selling point the Left are masters. Fortunately for them it doesn't take a whole lot of intelligence to use fear. The fire and brimstone preachers of old have been replaced by the Armageddon Left.
"Eddieonthemesa":
"Our health care what there is of it is broken but the republicans have never cared as evidenced by the catastrophic Bush era that....""
JJ:
You forget that Bush spent a lot more on social spending than the war. Prescription drugs, education, AIDS etc. You should have agreed with him most of the time. The National debt increased around $3.5 trillion and the war in Iraq cost less than $1 trillion.
"GrayMatter":
"Do you even comprehend the basic facts of global warming?"
JJ:
The risk of global warming is minuscule compared to global cooling.
CO2 [carbon dioxide] is not a pollutant but a plant fertilizer that has helped feed the world in the last 20 years.
"Gaymatter":
"Funny how when CO2 increases so do breathing problems."
JJ:
And you know this because? Nothing in your websites you reference proves this, but the opposite instead. CO2 is fairly evenly distributed throughout the planet yet the incidence rate of asthma is greater in cities?
Why?
Not because of CO2 but obviously because pollutants of other kinds are prevalent there.
Also since 1995 the incidence of asthma has not gone up, but the levels of CO2 have increased faster than any time in history. This dispels the myth that CO2 causes asthma.
Here are links to websites "Graymatter" gave to counter JJ:
http://www.webmd.com/asthma/news/20040429/high-carbon-dioxide-levels-may-up-asthma-rate
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/02/17/health/main600653.shtml
http://yaleglobal.yale.edu/content/global-warming-may-be-spurring-allergy-asthma
JJ:
Yes, there are spikes in CO2 in cities. Many cities will have a spike several times a year but a 60% increase is an anomaly. Urban areas do, on the average, have a little higher CO2 levels than the non urban. To get a dependable figure an average would have to be calculated over a period of time in many cities.
Here is some NASA data indicating that the distribution of CO2 is fairly uniform as I said. Most of the United States is around 384-386 PPM.
See: http://geology.com/nasa/carbon-dioxide-map/
I thought you were making the argument that breathing more CO2 causes asthma and no one is even making a theory around that idea. As I said CO2 is fertilizer for plants and your sites agree that it is fertilizing plants causing more pollen and plant growth. An unproven theory is this causes more asthma. But one of your [referenced] sites states this:
"While CO2 has been shown to boost growth and pollen production in plants, no studies, including this Harvard report, have been able to find a hard link between increased pollen and asthma."
It is also interesting that people in Iceland have more asthma than us and there is much less plant growth.
Here's another quote from your reference:
"Experts at the conference said they are baffled by what causes asthma -- a common chronic lung condition that causes the inflammation of airways and makes breathing difficult -- or why increases in asthma seem to go hand in hand with economic development.""
Here's another:
"Some scientists blame dust mites, mold, and other indoor allergens. Others point to specific pollutants in the air, changed diets, genetic susceptibility and higher obesity rates. Another idea, called the 'hygiene hypothesis,' argues that people today suffer from more allergies because they faced less exposure to infectious agents in childhood."
When you therefore blame an increase of CO2 on an increase of asthma you are repeating speculation, not science.
After all, as I said, CO2 has risen dramatically since 1995 but the incidence of asthma has remained fairly stable.
Mr. Corder writes:
"Coming in February is a whole new set of laws covering banking. Specifically targeted are predatory credit card fees and interest. The laws and restrictions are well defined. So, what is happening in the meantime? Check the mailings you are receiving from credit companies. Banking customers are being absolutely raped by rising rates, obnoxious and predatory new fees and every possible attempt to bring in every possible last dollar before the new laws are enacted."
JJ:
Typical effect of the government trying to help us. Instead they just make things worse. And if you think things will run smooth after February then you are dreaming.
A far as HR 3126 goes, this will do more harm than good, giving the Federal Government control over local banks and power to suffocate them.
Here's a site that tells us how it will be a boon to trial lawyers:
http://www.sfexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/Trial-lawyers-watch -as-a-new-financial-regulator-is-born-60372187.html
Mr. Boatman says:
"This comprehensive coverage should be the birthright of all children born in the United States."
JJ:
You know there a lot of things that would be nice to have as a birthright. Here are a few:
Free college education.
A job paying $30/hr or more.
A spacious home.
Free organ transplants with no waiting.
A loving partner.
Free daycare.
Free meals at The Outback.
Free Iphones.
Free cable TV.
Free gas.
Free vitamins, etc.
And why does our government not supply all these things? It has to be all those greedy capitalists bent on gouging us and making extreme profits. All we have to do is to give government full power and create a single payer system for all these. Then we can eliminate the profits and have all kinds of free stuff.
But where would the money come from? Unfortunately, without capitalism we'd wind up not even having toilet paper as in Cuba or eating tree bark to survive like North Korea. Ayn Rand was right: We need a little self interest to prosper.
"Tony" wrote:
"'Mr. B' is talking about basic human needs. Of your list, only housing could be considered in this category, minus the 'spacious.'"
JJ:
If orthodox health care is such a basic human need then why haven't I had to go for a family doctor for 30 years? The last time I did go was for a broken bone.
Could I go 30 years without gas? It would be much more difficult. Since I need gas much more than I need medical services the I guess I should demand free gas.
Instead of all these prescription drugs we can treat ourselves with diet and herbs for a few cents. If you get the flue just drink lemon juice, water cayenne pepper and honey for a few days and you'll be better off than the guy who went to the doctor.
We should cover people for proven life saving procedures and the rest can be taken care of for a few pennies.
"Tony":
"As for Ayn Rand, she was discredited decades ago."
JJ:
By what? Your imagination? Obama is proving her correct.
"Larnewoman" wrote:
"It is interesting however that many who are Christian or spiritual accept the ideology of Rand, who scoffed at those believing in anything non-material...."
JJ:
Yes, I know it is extremely difficult to understand that there are those out there who are not Kool Aid drinkers and do not just blindly accept the total of a black-and-white political philosophy. The idea that one can study others with a different ideology and take the best from it is just beyond their comprehension.
To such their big criticism is: "I have placed you in this box, so why do you not stay in it? After all, I stay in mine."
I personally study many religions and philosophies and take the best from them. It doesn't matter that Rand did not believe in God. What matters is the truth behind her words. The reason the Left has such a hard time with her is they treat politics like a religion which was repulsive to Ayn.
Copyright © 2009 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved