Local Posts #45

2009-11-15 03:29:00

  

Oct 3, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Sounds like Ms Moldenhauer wants a one party system all right, but of Democrats only. She doesn't seem to realize that she just about has it now for the Democrats have a veto proof Congress and can pass anything they want if they can get their own party in line.

Leo Faddis lists talking point distortions of Biblical proportions and the amazing thing is the high percentage on the Left that swallow it. He asks where our complaints against Bush were -- first at stealing the election.

First, Bush was constitutionally elected. He won the most votes in Florida and hence the most electoral votes. Get over it.

Leo responded with:

"He started an illegal war."

JJ:

The war was legal, approved by Congress and the United Nations. In addition the end of the first Gulf War was a cease-fire that allowed a legal resumption for a number of infractions made by Saddam Hussein. Clinton also legally resumed the war a number of times.

  

Leo:

"Doubled the national debt."

JJ:

We did complain a lot about this, but the Left kept complaining that Bush did not spend enough on social programs -- where most of the money went.

  

Leo:

"Tapped our phones and computers."

JJ:

The average citizen had about as much chance of getting his phone tapped as being struck by lightening. Ohhh that's so terrible. The danger from your neighbor peeking through your window is much greater. Talk about being afraid of the boogieman.

  

Leo:

"Tortured prisoners he rounded up all over the world."

JJ:

What a distortion for three people were waterboarded and many lives saved. And there is not even agreement that waterboarding is torture.

  

Leo:

"Ignored any law he didn't like."

JJ:

That's a matter of interpretation. Obama makes Bush look like Mr. Clean here.

  

Leo:

"If a public option health insurance program is so horrible, why is it supported by a majority of people in every survey done?"

JJ:

Obviously Leo is depending on wishful thinking. 52% disapprove of Obama's plan:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090909/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_ap_poll_health_care

Only 41% approve of Obama's Health Care plan:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/
healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

  

Leo:

"And, if a government plan is so bad, how many people do you know who are 65-plus years old and buy some plan other than Medicare?"

JJ:

This is a dumb question. We as taxpayers pay $9600 for each person on Medicare a year. The only way to get some of that tax money back is to sign up.

Instead of bitterly calling other concerned citizens hypocrites Leo needs to look in his own backyard.

  

Oct 3, 2009 -- Post #2

JJ:

It is really getting old that everything me and others from the Right post here is accused of being cut and paste material from Rush, Beck, Hannity, etc.

It is the Left who are the clones to Pelosi, Reid, Obama and each other. There is much more diversity of belief on the Right.

In my hundreds of posts I do not recall doing any cut and pasting from any famous conservative. I agree with them on some items, disagree on others.

If I post something about limited government this does not mean I am parroting Rush who believes the same thing. I believed this when I was 12, long before Rush came along.

I believe this "ditto monkey" accusation comes from a famine of critical thinking ability from the Left. If they have no answer to sound reason they just mindlessly attack or minimize by attacking the messenger rather than the message.

  

Oct 3, 2009 -- Post #3

"Badnana" wrote:

"Joseph [JJ] claims to be an independent thinker, yet absolutely will not see any other point of view other than the strict republican mantra he adheres to verbatim."

JJ:

Since everyone in the universe already claims to think for themselves I usually do not dido this claim, but do claim to have arrived at my conclusions by critical thought. And those that I have arrived at are closest to the Libertarian point of view, as I have said many times. "Black-and-white" Leftists cannot seem to differentiate into more than the two things of "black-and-white." If you do not accept them 100% you are the one enemy -- Republicans. A Libertarian, or any other line of thought is a blur to them.

Along with most Libertarians I am pro choice, support legalization of drugs because that represents maximum freedom. I am big on creating a clean environment and clean energy as long as it is accomplished through sensible measures without taking away freedom.

  

Oct 3, 2009 -- Post #4

"BarneyRubble" wrote:

"'Famine of critical thinking ability from the Left.' Now that's hilarious. Not the statement per se, but the choice of words. Sorry, I am too busy laughing and wiping the tears out of my eyes to grab my Theseus to come up with a equally sounding retort."

JJ:

At this same moment, in another part of the world, Fred, an inmate of a mental institution, laughed with a tingle of superiority, at his doctor's diagnosis.

  

Oct 3, 2009 -- Post #5

"Graymatter":

"The fact remains that you, in particular, are quite invested in the very issues and information which 'Faux News' and cronies promote on any given day - to the point you don't question the tactics, information, messenger or the message objectively."

JJ:

I question a lot of things on Fox News unlike you who accept comic Bill Maher with all seriousness.

  

"Gray":

"The messenger and tactics can be just as important as the information itself."

JJ:

So if a messenger says 2+2=5 you examine the messenger rather than the message. Smart as a tack you are.

  

"Gray":

"Why are your deflections of opinion about the messenger versus the message only reserved for those who describe themselves as left? Why no such admonitions for those quoting FauxNews; et. al., cronies [or chain letters]?"

JJ:

I don't mind anyone quoting anything. Just let me know the source and I'll check it out.

  

Oct 3, 2009 -- Post #6

"Gray":

"I read, in lieu of subscribing to any form of television, including FauxNews.com several times a day."

JJ:

How do you read Fox several times a day? Oh. You are so clever to call Fox, "Faux." Your gray matter is spilling out all over with originality.

  

"Gray":

"Thank you, but actually, I am way smarter than tack."

JJ:

That's debatable.

  

"Gray":

"But I guess you take all information at face value by whomever proffers it?"

JJ:

Obviously not or I would swallow all the propaganda you come up with. It doesn't matter who tells me to take aspirin. I would make my decision on the data and the effect on me.

  

"Gray":

"That explains why you never question your own sources and why they are often refuted successfully."

JJ:

Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You're the one that doesn't question your sources. You accept any Obama source out there without question.

  

"Gray":

"Dr. Manny."

JJ:

I've never referenced a Dr. Manny.

  

"Gray":

"The fact is, the only people you denigrate are those who differ or offer information opposing your opinion, which, again, reveals your inherent bias."

JJ:

Perfect description of yourself. Were you looking in the mirror when you wrote this?

  

"Gray":

"You never question sources which supposedly support your view point, making you dishonest."

JJ:

Describes you to a tee.

When will you realize that you cannot win an argument by just declaring yourself correct with Godlike authority? Sooner or later you have to do more than declare victory, more than attack the messenger. Sooner or later you have to deal with the message and the actual facts.

  

Oct 4, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

(Note:  a writer quotes a poll saying that 65% of the public want a public option in health care.)

We were talking yesterday about questioning sources. I see Graymatter "loves" Keenan's letter. I'm sure other Lefties accept the quote of the 65% without questioning. Well, I question so I check.

The first thing I notice is that the CBS/NYT poll gives no details about the number involved or the margin of error.

Yesterday I referenced an Associated Press poll that gave Obama's plan a 52% disapproval rating and a Rasmussen poll that gave it only 41% approval. Obviously Obama's plan is the problem. It makes a difference when the question is more specific. These polls actually give the numbers behind their polling which add credibility.

The CBS/NYT poll also says some curious things like twice as many seniors think Obamacare will make things worse for them than better.

A larger percentage believe Joe Wilson than Obama on immigrant coverage.

8% more believe Obamacare will create death panels than reject it.

Still enthused about the CBS/NYT poll?

  

Oct 4, 2009 -- Post #2

"My2CentsWorth":

"Anyone can find a poll or some other documentation to support their opinion and position. The problem is that you are so transparent that everyone can predict what you are going to say before you even post it. Why don't you give us all a break and give it a rest."

JJ:

Those who say such things do not usually even read the details of polls. You can't find a scientific poll to support any belief. Scientific polls that ask the same questions are usually quite close.

For instance, you can't find any poll giving Congress a high rating and there are thousands of other things that no poll will support. You can't just dismiss any poll with which you disagree.

  

Oct 4, 2009 -- Post #3

"BoiseBlue" wrote:

"So Joe [JJ], you are very consistent in your opposition to health care reform.

"What's your solution? Business as usual?"

JJ:

Business as usual would be better than the proposed plan.

I'm not in opposition to health care reform but strongly support it.

Here is what I am in opposition to.

Having a 1000+ page bill crammed down our throats and being voted on by people who either refuse or didn't have time to read it.

Expanding a program that is unsustainable. Medicare costs $9600 per person whereas in Japan something similar is a little over $2000. We cannot afford to expand on something so corrupt with fraud and waste.

Instead of plunging into financial disaster and possible death panels forced upon through lack of funds we should first create three or more pilot programs and see how they work in various cities or states over a period of two years. If one of them turns out to be something we can afford then present it to the people in 100 pages or less in a public referendum. This is too important to leave to a Corrupt Congress. If the majority of the people support it, even if I do not think it is the ideal, I would support it.

  

Oct 4, 2009 -- Post #4

"BarneyRubble" wrote:

"Death Panels? It makes me laugh when ever I hear someone use that phrase with regard to health care reform. Use some of that critical thinking you believe you have and tell me how the insurance industry doesn't embrace the 'death panel' philosophy today by denying coverage and benefits today."

JJ:

Yes, they have death panels also, but with a major difference. When you sign up the contract already states that which is covered and that which is not. If you do not like the life saving coverage that will be denied then you do not have to subscribe to it or pay for it.

The Left is trying to deceive us into thinking there will be no death panels so we will sign up, pay taxes as premiums and then be denied life saving treatment more than ever. People will become very angry when they see this happen if the current bill is implemented.

  

Oct 4, 2009 -- Post #5

"BoiseBlue" wrote:

"Joe, [JJ] thanks for your explanation. Your major concern seems to be with the cost of health care reform. However, this country already spends 40% more per capita than any other industrialized nation in the world."

JJ:

But the government already spends 46% of all health care money in socialized medicine and in this area we spend three times as much as other nations. How can we afford to spend 300% more instead of 40% more as you say happens now? This is madness.

  

"BarneyRubble" wrote:

"Your logic is flawed. The left have made no such claims. There is nothing in any of the legislative proposals that would call for the creation of death panels."

JJ:

The insurance companies do not make any such claims of death panels either, but a rose is a rose by any other name and a panel that decides on the worthiness of life or death is a death panel.

Under Obama's plan there will not be enough money to go around for life-saving procedures and those who make the decisions on who gets their lives saved or destroyed can be defined as death panels.

Why is this simple fact beyond your comprehension?

  

"Badnana" wrote:

"Joey [JJ] is an insurance agent! It's the only thing that makes sense."

JJ:

Sorry. Wrong again as usual. Insurance is the last business I want to enter.

  

Oct 4, 2009 -- Post #6

"GrayMatter":

"Once again, you are arguing with what was NOT said."

JJ:

Not so.

  

Oct 4, 2009 -- Post #7

"BarneyRubble" wrote:

"Produce the legislation that creates your so called 'death panels' (you and Sarah Palin used the term, not me). Your feeble attempt at an explanation does nothing but further erode your credibility and integrity. We are still waiting."

JJ:

Here you go again: Under Obama's plan (the current legislation) there will not be enough money to go around for life-saving procedures and those who make the decisions on who gets their lives saved or destroyed can be defined as death panels. Why is this simple fact beyond your comprehension?

  

Oct 4, 2009 -- Post #8

"Mud" wrote:

"7.32 [JJ], I only hope you intend to provide the service of a 'Devil's Advocate.' Such advocacy has been responsible for civilization as a whole. You're doing a fairly decent job, but too easily caught in contradictions."

JJ:

Then you should be able to point one out.

  

"Mud":

"I really hope for your sake you don't really believe in everything you preach."

JJ:

I say exactly what I believe as far as the confinement of the limited wording here allows.

  

"Mud":

"Closed minds don't advance civilization. They have a tendency to stifle all progress."

JJ:

And why do you think my mind is closed? Because I do not agree with you? Does that then make you closed-minded because you do not agree with me?

As far as advancing civilization goes, I've written books putting forth concepts to advance civilization, but I doubt if the Left on this forum is open enough to consider them.

  

"Mud":

"What do you do in the real world? Other than preach?"

JJ:

As I explained a while back, in addition to being an author I have a business that supplies products and services to other businesses. The last time I was asked this question I gave my web address to clarify and was jumped all over by a number of posters here accusing me of advertising. I guess I won't do that again.

  

Oct 4, 2009 -- Post #9

"GrayMatter":

"Why can't you produce the statement verbatim which states this? Why are you continuing to laughably and ineffectively argue with something which has never been stated?"

JJ:

The argument is whether there will be death panels or not if the legislation is passed so I am on topic.

Again, why is this seen as so difficult to understand by the bunch here? As I've said before, there is no wording that says "death panel" but if the legislation is implemented there will not be enough money to pay for all the needed life giving services. Panels will thus have to decide who lives and dies. A panel that decides on life and death could appropriately be called a death panel.

  

Oct 4, 2009 -- Post #10

"GrayMatter":

"Jojo [JJ]: you are arguing that a made up phrase to describe something which in actuality has not been proposed, is going to become a reality based on the fact you think an unrelated issue will maybe make this made up concept a reality?

"So you are saying death panels are...."

JJ:

It is easy to predict that when a government runs out of money that a panel will have to be created to decide how services are rationed. or are you predicting that this will never happen? If you are then I am the one who will be proven correct, and even then you will not admit to it.

  

Oct 5, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

The funny thing here is that writers are attacking the Right for Bachelder's letter and she is about as far left as you can get in most areas. She is a big believer in socialism, an anti capitalist, anti Bush and anti war.

As far as humor goes I do think that humor of all kinds today depends too much on lower sex and four letter words. Some comedians seem to think they are funny if they just issue a string of phrases that would offend grandma. That had a little shock value 40 years ago and many of us thought it was cute how George Carlin challenged the barriers.

Now it's overdone and not creative. These diatribes have lost their shock value. Comedians need to go back to just trying to be funny. Movies and plays can be funny and entertaining without trying to use he lowest denominator of language.

I would also be annoyed if comedians used "praise Jesus" in every sentence in the hope that would make me accept them.

  

Oct 5, 2009 -- Post #2

"Run":

"The very first letter-writer points out the irony in Bachelder's comments given her past rants."

JJ:

Yes, but he still attacked the Right for no other reason than to comment on Bachelder's letter.

  

"Gimmeshelter":

"Anyone having read these letters for at least a year would not be mislead by Joseph's [JJ's] claim that Carol is a closet Leftie. The woman is a bigot, flake and always on the side of religious, conservative issues."

JJ:

She's not a closet Leftie, but an open one -- wide open.

Every letter before this one I have read has been in support of liberal issues. Run just brought up the "save the turkeys" column, for instance. She is really in your camp on health care and social issues. Because she is out of step on one issue -- gay humor -- you just throw her under the bus.

  

Oct 5, 2009 -- Post #3

JJ:

You're right Jim. If we begged, borrowed and stole, plus added taxes so we spend maybe 25% of the GDP on health care instead of 15% we could supply Obama with a dreamy health care plan. Then instead of death panels we would have to cut the military, cut transportation, cut welfare, etc.

Obama's already planning on taking $500 billion from Medicare and shifting it around like a shell game.

If he keeps his promise on no tax increases for those making less than $250,000 and doesn't live on borrowed money there is no way to avoid rationing with the current plan. But if those in power see free healthcare as more important than eating, a job or power to maintain our freedom then it could theoretically be done.

But if we pour all possible funding into healthcare and do not ration money we will still have bureaucrats to deal with.

Bureaucracy is a death panel to all it touches.

  

Oct 6, 2009 -- Post #1

Doug writes:

"Creationism's entire foundation, 'God did it,' is not subject to change for any reason. Creationism does not involve evidence, observation, testing, verification or research, and it does not change with the introduction of new knowledge, evidence or information."

JJ:

The four writers today on creationism have an extremely narrow and limited view on intelligent design. Before a person comments to the point of condemnation he should have at least a vague idea of what he is talking about.

These seem to think all believers in intelligent design think that God just snapped his fingers 6000 years ago and created everything, that the simple story of Adam and Eve is all the science they are capable of understanding or wanting to teach. They need to get out of their biosphere they have been living in and realize that there is a whole lot of science behind intelligent design.

One major mistake atheists make is that the whole of the argument centers around evolution. For some it may but for many like myself it does not, for many of us believe in evolution and an earth that is billions of years old. All the science behind evolution is merely an observation of universal intelligent life creatively designing more complex forms.

To observe Divine Intelligence in progress does not rule out intelligent design. Duh.

The question to be asked to even begin to understand creation is this. What is life and why does life have power to choose? Is evolution caused by the power of choice inherent in life itself? If life is choosing the various designs (natural selection) then do we not have intelligent design?

Yes, of course.

Even the literal Bible believers who think the earth is 10,000 years old or less have some interesting arguments. Here's a couple:

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/739422/man_and_dinosaur_together_at_last/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/dinosaurbones.asp

On the other hand, those like myself who believe in both evolution and intelligent design have even more science than the atheists. I do not think Adam and Eve should be taught in schools, but the science behind intelligent design deserves to not be censored, but to be presented.

  

Oct 6, 2009 -- Post #2

"Gimmeshelter":

"The religionists couldn't get 'Creationism' approved for the classroom. So, they came up with 'Intelligent Design.' After this latest version of bible-thumping fails, as it always does, to gain acceptance, what will be the next version?"

JJ:

I do not know who came up with the term "intelligent design," but I'm glad of it for it is much more inclusive than "creationism." Creationism implies the fundamentalist belief that the earth is only a few thousand years old. This belief only applies to a few of those who believe in Divine Intelligence.

Intelligent design includes all the Christians, Moslems, Buddhists, Hindus, Theosophists -- basically all religions and metaphysics -- probably about 90% of the people on the planet.

It is an absolute fact that the power to intelligently design exists in the universe and that is human consciousness. Atheist science has no explanation for the reality that designing consciousness does exist. If such intelligence prevails through the universe then we have intelligent design. The complexity of creation itself is statistical proof of such.

  

Oct 6, 2009 -- Post #3

"Larnewoman:":

"Okay, we get it: you really, really, really don't get it. Science is not atheist or theist."

JJ:

This is the way it is supposed to be and it is so with some scientific research and theory, but is sadly lacking in our educational system. Here science is atheistic and thinking is censored to exclude:

The atheist educational system is afraid of the truth just as were the Vatican scientists who put Galileo in jail.

  

Oct 6, 2009 -- Post #4

"Larnewoman:":

"(Disclaimer, if anyone from my church recognizes me, and is an actual dentist, the above was not meant to reference an actual person, i.e. you. I could've said accountant, or plumber, etc., instead of dentist)?"

JJ:

Since you are an obvious atheist who does not believe in the God of creation why in the world would you go to church?

  

Oct 6, 2009 -- Post #5

"Larnewoman:":

"And you know this how? Please site evidence that I am an atheist. Just because I want only science to be taught in publicly funded science class, that doesn't make me an atheist."

JJ:

You really had me fooled for you argue against intelligent design like a hard core atheist arguing that "Intelligent Design" has no science behind it.

Let us clarify your thinking so I know who I am arguing with.

Do you believe in God?

Do you believe in Intelligent Design yourself?

Do you believe in evolution?

  

Oct 6, 2009 -- Post #6

"Larnewoman's" answer:

"1. Re: belief in God: Not always, I'm doing my best. I understand others have this condition too. 2. I'm still not sure how you mean intelligent design. Definitely not Intelligent Design "Theory", as espoused by Discovery Institute. I believe there's a reason that there's something, instead of nothing, which necessarily, and in my opinion, has implications. But I'm comfortable with accepting that there are some things we can't know scientifically, and that seems to be borne out when you try to apply the scientific method to them. 3. I accept evolutionary theory as, well a Theory, i.e. an explanation that is well supported by observable fact. I note that explanation of the mechanisms seem not to require an outside-of-science reason, and that when outside-of-science arguments are forced into scientific explanations of evolutionary theory, they are usually for religious motives and so far have been found to be unsupported and superfluous."

JJ:

Thanks for your answers Larnewoman. As far as believing in God, it sounds like you are an agnostic who wants to believe, thus you go to church.

I had never heard of the Discovery Institute and checked them out and they seem pretty reasonable. They espouse the scientific method and reject orthodox creationism.

They say:

"The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."

This statement is somewhat of an oxymoron for there can be no "natural selection," or choice unless there is intelligence at work. Without intelligence there can only be "random selection." I get their point though as they are using accepted terminology.

Here's what they say about Intelligent Design:

"The scientific method is commonly described as a four-step process involving observations, hypothesis, experiments, and conclusion. Intelligent design begins with the observation that intelligent agents produce complex and specified information (CSI). Design theorists hypothesize that if a natural object was designed, it will contain high levels of CSI. Scientists then perform experimental tests upon natural objects to determine if they contain complex and specified information. One easily testable form of CSI is irreducible complexity, which can be discovered by experimentally reverse-engineering biological structures to see if they require all of their parts to function. When ID researchers find irreducible complexity in biology, they conclude that such structures were designed."

Can you tell me what there is in this statement or anything else they espouse with which you disagree?

On the third point both the Intelligent Design and the standard evolution theory of evolution require some explanation of creation that goes beyond what science can explain so you can't escape the "outside of science" idea no matter which direction you chose. Even Steven Hawking admits this about the Big Bang.

I see the Discovery Institute accepts evolution but believes there is intelligence guiding it.

Once anything is understood, even things that seem supernatural, are then "inside science."

  

Oct 6, 2009 -- Post #7

JJ:

For a person who attends church, Larnewoman, you seem to really be on a campaign to destroy belief. On the other hand, I attend no church and am a member of none, yet I often find myself defending believers, not because I always agree with them but for the sake of defending reason and truth.

You say:

"You keep saying things like 'without intelligence there can only be 'random selection.'' I ask, what is random selection? Is that something you made up?"

JJ:

Random selection and intelligent selection has been around since the beginning of time. Let us say you are steering your car down the highway with a goal to just stay on the road for one mile. That is an intelligent selection or choice. Let us say that you have proceeded one block and then take your hands off the steering wheel. What happens next is random selection with no intelligence at the wheel. We all know that within a few feet the car would wander off the road and not stay on the highway.

Any series of choices that reaches an intelligent or constructive end has to be directed by an intelligent mind.

I wrote a story illustrating this idea way back when I was a teenager. You can read it here:

http://www.freeread.com/archives/3789.php