Local Posts #55

2010-1-13 04:41:00

Dec 19, 2009 -- Post #1

  

Dorene Werntz writes:  "Secondly, to the caring church communities of Boise and Baker City, for the many ways you helped to meet our needs in our dark time. You provided housing, food, cars, and most of all, Christ's love and healing through your many prayers."

JJ:

Dorene! Don't you know you are speaking blaspheme to most Statesman readers -- especially on this forum? They think all Christians are greedy double-crossing child abusing hypocrites who would shame Jesus to death if he were to show up.

Your words are also dangerous. The mere mentioning of caring Christians, or any believers in God, is likely to give some readers a heart attack. The loving people you mention do not fit the pre-conceived mold.

Indeed. Some people light a candle. Others curse the darkness.

  

Dec 19, 2009 -- Post #2

JJ:

I missed out on meeting Ernie the Elk. It's too bad when one Jerk spoils everyone else's enjoyment. (Ernie was a local pet elk that someone shot)

A few years ago my wife and I went on an elk feeding hayride up in the Cascade area. The guide told us that the elk would come right up to us as long as we did not stand up. This was correct. They came up to us with no fear at all -- looking for something to eat.

One thing that impressed me was the imperfection of nature in taking care of its own. The poor elk were half starved and freezing. I could see how humans play a major role in helping nature along as did this rancher in feeding the elk so they could survive another year.

Humanity makes mistakes along the way but in the end, as part of nature, we will fulfill our destiny in improving upon it. There's a lot more people that condemn the guy who killed Ernie than give him a pass.

  

Dec 19, 2009 -- Post #3

"Buckaroo Bonsai":  "Koseph732 and Dorene: Compassionate, caring people do good things. Thanking them is nice. Selfish, self absorbed, unkind people don't. I doubt seriously if the folks who needed and received help 'checked the religious credentials' of those who helped. To assume all are 'Christians' who are acting...."

JJ:

Now you're making stuff up to criticize me. I didn't say they were "all" Christians but included all religions in the statement: "The mere mentioning of caring Christians, or any believers in God...."

  

Dec 19, 2009 -- Post #4

"Rac10:":  "Frankly, I am amazed at Joseph's rant against Dorene Werntz."

(See Dec 19, Post #1.)

"Run":  "Joseph, you are a clueless tool. I think Dorene's letter is a beautiful display of the potential of community, religious or not."

JJ:

Wow! Talk about seeing the glass half full or cursing the darkness to find fault where there is none. First "Buckaroo" makes a fabrication to condemn me and now you completely distort the whole meaning of my post. I was not saying anything "against" Darlene and yes her letter was beautiful. I am in complete agreement with her. To see anything otherwise is either being mean spirited or lacking mental faculties.

I was speaking to her supportively that saying something so positive about Christians or believers in God is likely to cause an upsurge of negativity from the usual bunch here who see believers as evil doers. Looks like I was right because the negativity has started.

If I hadn't preemptively worded my post the way I did probably nothing positive would have been said about her letter but the focus would have been on what hypocrites Christians are.

As it was, "Rac" still could not resist pointing out that all Christians are not good and "GrayMatter" tells us that they are only kind because their church tells them to be. This implies that without their church instructions they would only be hateful.

And to think this bunch has the chutzpah to say I was negative toward Darlene.

  

"GrayMatter":  "Please provide links to support your holiday season foaming at the mouth rant. I recommend anger management classes to control your obvious extreme negativity."

JJ:

And you provide links that prove believers are only kind when they are told to be.

  

Dec 19, 2009 -- Post #5

"BoiseBlue:":  "Now I know you are delusional Joseph. Humanity is the single largest contributor to the extinction of hundreds of thousands of species on this planet. Our population of 6.6 Billion people (and climbing) is adversely affecting the vast majority of our fellow animals."

JJ:

Wow. You must be including all the species in the Cretaceous period, like the dinosaurs, to come up with a number like that. With a belief system like yours the best thing you could do for humanity is jump off a cliff. What a way to think and see the glass half full.

As I said, humanity has made mistakes, but we have also done a lot of good things and made improvements. Just look at all the beautiful gardens and landscaping we have done that goes beyond anything nature has accomplished.

We are now reaching a turning point so a thousand years from now even religious self righteous environmentalists will have to admit that God made the right decision in placing man here.

  

Dec 19, 2009 -- Post #6

"Buckaroo Bonsai:":  "Joseph, You believe Mankind has improved nature?

"One Question: What color IS the sky in your world?"

JJ:

For claiming to be liberal or progressive this bunch are really regressive and limiting in their thinking. To see humanity as a victim and victimizer that cannot improve itself or the environment is ultra conservative thinking that belongs to the Middle Ages. Time will prove my views on this correct.

  

Dec 19, 2009 -- Post #7

"GrayMatter:":  "It is becoming increasingly clear that Stavros's advice that you engage in adult education is quite valid. Just in case adult education is too demanding for you, here is a website which may assist you in comprehending simply executed posts on this forum [read: no big words or complex sentences]. The first grade lesson plan would suit your needs quite well. (Gives site reference.)"

JJ:

And here's a site for you:

http://www.buzzle.com/articles/anger-management-for-children.html

Oh, and here's a picture of your anger management teacher:

http://lh4.ggpht.com/abramsv/R6a_nu9HrEI/AAAAAAAAGOg/
zZGDxK-BYsw/15_pics.jpg

  

Dec 19, 2009 -- Post #8

Replying to JJ, "GrayMatter" writes:

"Thank you for reiterating, validating and confirming my earlier posted facts.

"Your persona does require a first grade lesson plan for comprehending simple sentence structure. You still do not understand basic sentence structure: i.e. Your misconstrued use..."

JJ:

And here is a graduate from your class -- a real person:

http://media.fabulously40.com/images/ugly15.jpg

  

Dec 19, 2009 -- Post #9

"GrayMatter":

"While it is not necessary to repeatedly validate, highlight and illustrate your shortcomings as outlined in my previous posts, I appreciate your thoughtfulness in doing so. I most appreciate that you fail to live up to even your very own repetitive and meaningless...."

JJ:

Just following your lead. You set the tone here.

  

Dec 19, 2009 -- Post #10

"Mud":

"Happy Holiday's Eh? I've worked in Idaho long enough to know that solstice season isn't only dark and cold, but precarious financially. Even cutting my own firewood, I'd have to worry about even keeping a home."

JJ:

If you're having a hard time this Christmas I feel for you. I've been though some bare bones Christmases in my life and if you have kids it makes you almost dread the season. I've lived in a one room shack, picked and thinned fruit, pruned and irrigated trees, worked construction through a union, worked in a sawmill, a meat plant and after working for about dozen companies in a row that went out of business decided to work for myself where I wouldn't be at the mercy of others.

I wouldn't try and diminish any source that helped you get through difficulties. I'm thankful I am in a comfortable situation this Christmas and hope all of us here will work toward the same goal of bringing abundance and good will to all.

  

Dec 20, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

It would be interesting to see what was involved in the niece's homework assignment. Was it designed to indoctrinate the kids or teach them both sides fairly? Will the niece come away thinking Republicans are mean spirited grinches and Democrats deserve sainthood or what?

Then Judy emphasizes what she believes to be the core difference between Republicans and Democrats. She says:

"Democrats share a commitment to strengthening democracy with an educated, informed, middle class."

JJ:

Wow! Democrats really had me fooled. Right now they are attempting to shove a health care program down our throats that is only supported by 38-40% of the people.

See:

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

The vast majority want Congress to take some time to read and discuss what's actually in the bill before they vote on it, as Obama promised, but they fight the will of the people on this.

75% are against cap and trade if their power bill will go up by $25 (which it will), but are Democrats concerned about majority will here? Not.

See:

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/04/30/zogby-poll-
only-30-of-americans-support-cap-and-trade/

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/lachlan-markay/2009/
12/15/poll-shows-support-cap-trade-until-consequences-are-considered

Only 37% supported Obama's stimulus plan but they plowed ahead anyway. Now they are talking about a second stimulus with even weaker support.

See:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/economic_
stimulus_package/february_2009/support_for_stimulus_package_falls_to_37

You don't have to take a poll to know the majority are against pork and earmarks, yet the current Democrats are champions in both of these categories.

When we have democratic votes on various propositions the Democrats do not support the will of the people if it goes against their mindset, but seek to fight democratic will through the courts. Proposition 8 was a recent example that gathered 52% of the popular vote yet not accepted. They seek to impose their will more through the courts than the democratic process.

I had to laugh at her thinking they wanted an informed middle class. Yeah, right, that's why they don't want us have time to read the bills or be informed on both sides of global warming and other issues.

  

Dec 20, 2009 -- Post #2

"Mateo":

"A cat fight on the blogs isn't near as good as it is in person...sigh"

JJ:

You are so right. Double sigh.

I wonder how much money we'd have to put up to get "GrayMatter" and "Camerafan" to take on this woman:

http://www.commentbuddy.com/comments/Ugly-Women /seekcodes_227_5901.jpg

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

It's funny when you think of it but it is always the Left who are clamoring for lower speed limits. I do not know of one from the Right who wants to reinstitute the 55 MPH limit but a lot of Lefties do. Also back in the Seventies it was the Left who insisted this happen and we suffered for years under the pokey law. It was finally raised by my hero, Idaho Republican Steve Symms, introducing higher speed legislation.

What does this tell you?

Chances are, if you meet a pokey driver it will be some Lefty slowly gliding along taking the time to observe the environment, checking for wildlife, trying to save fuel, complaining about the cars whizzing by, or whatever.

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #2

"GrayMatter":

"You may remember, in the 70's there was an oil crisis, which was the impetus for speed limit laws. More interestingly, nothing changed with this law until Steve Symms was out of office for several years."

JJ:

Wow. You really go out of your way to distort to make a feeble attempt to prove me wrong.

In 1980 Reagan made a campaign pledge to increase the speed limit. Finally in 1987 with the cooperation of Steve Symms a highway bill passed allowing the states to increase the speed in most interstate areas to 65 MPH. That was as good as he could get passed then. Because of democratic obstruction we still aren't back to the full universal cruising speeds of 1974.

Steve Symms left office in 1993. The speed limits increased in 1987.

Finally in 1995 with the help of a Republican majority additional federal restrictions were lifted and speed limits increased above the 65 mph.

Thank God for Steve Symms and Reagan for getting the ball rolling. If this was the only thing Steve did in office that would have been enough for me.

See:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1345&dat= 19860812&id=cbUSAAAAIBAJ&sjid=1vk DAAAAIBAJ&pg=5095,2358600

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Maximum_Speed_ Law#Opposition_and_noncompliance

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #3

"GrayMatter":

"It always amazes me how some bloggers believe because they think something, that it is automatically a fact."

JJ:

It must be frustrating for you then since this statement seems to apply to you. The latest example is today when you implied Symms had nothing to do with raising the limit, but the facts reveal that he did. This example of facts revealing your distorted beliefs happens regularly. You should stop embarrassing yourself.

  

"GrayMatter":

"Listen to yourself, being a self described Libertarian spiritual teacher. You would rather pit one side against the other. You would rather look for differences rather than common ground."

JJ:

I guess you would never qualify as a spiritual teacher then because you never look for common ground with me or anyone from the Right on this forum.

The greatest teacher, Jesus, created so much conflict he said, "blessed is he, whosoever shall not be offended in me." (Matt 11:6)

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #4

"GrayMatter":

"Fact: The 55 law was supported by and signed into law by President Richard Nixon."

JJ:

Has nothing to do with my point. The 55 MPH limit was pushed through by environmentalists and the Democrats. Nixon went along with it and I cursed him for it for I was driving over 50,000 miles a year.

  

"GrayMatter":

"Fact: The federal speed limit law was not fully repealed until 1995, significantly after both Symms and Reagan left office."

JJ:

Has nothing to do with my point. The Most highway speeds were increased in 1987 thanks to Symms and Reagan. The coup de grace was finished by the Republican Congress in 1995. You cannot disprove this no matter how much you try to distort.

Fact: It has been the Left who wanted the 55 MPH limit and dragged their feet in raising it. This is powerful anecdotal evidence that they are comfortable with slow driving.

I've had a lot of Lefties defend the 55 MPH limit but never one from the Right in my experience. I'll bet you would have supported it in 1974.

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #5

"GrayMatter":

"One would think if you were to describe yourself in such a manner, you would make a determined point to exhibit those qualities which would exemplify and illustrate such qualities through example -- qualities we would all choose to emulate. the fact is your posts are completely incongruous with your self description."

JJ:

There is a time and place for everything. A political forum is not the place to sing Kumbaya but to give opinions and seek to arrive at the truth. If we did not take sides here it would be a boring place indeed getting maybe three posts a day.

I have put together a number of plans and ideas to bring unity and heal divisions. For just one of them Google these words.

"Principles of Unification."

My plan will come up first in the search.

But... I am here to discuss politics, which may be the least spiritual thing on earth, so I am ready to rumble.

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #6

"My2CentsWorth":

"No one has to go out of their way to prove you wrong. You do that yourself."

JJ:

So. What are you waiting for. Show me where I am wrong.

What's that I hear?

Incoherent mumbling and frustration.

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #7

"SoBlu":

"You might be the business end of a bad joke but you ain't no Jesus!

"Live what you preach would the starting point to being Jesus like -- since you aren't getting it."

JJ:

I live exactly what I teach, thank you. Way to maliciously judge a guy for no reason.

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #8

JJ:

I'll ignore Gray's insulting statements and get to her questions.

She writes:

"Since speed limits were not raised after the 55 law repeal to pre 55 law limits, how was this even relevant in your markedly unsuccessful invocation of the 55 law as proof of (and I quote): 'it is always the Left who are clamoring for lower speed limits' OR 'chances are if you meet a pokey driver it will be some Lefty.'"

JJ:

The fact that the speed was not raised to the full amount has nothing to do with anything I said. It was lowered to 55 to begin with because of pressure from the Left and was raised to 65 through strenuous efforts from the Right over objections from the Left. 65 MPH was the highest Symms could put through without giving the Left a heart attack.

"GrayMatter":

"Since speed limits have not returned to pre 55 limits by states, how was the repeal a success for R's?"

JJ:

The states that did not return to the Pre 1974 limits are mostly the Left dominated states as California, Oregon, New Jersey, Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii and Maine. Right leaning states such as Idaho, Wyoming, Nevada, and Utah have a 75 MPH limit which is higher than they had before. Thank God I currently drive mostly in right leaning states.

  

"GrayMatter":

"Happy Xmas!"

JJ:

Thanks.

Actually X was originally not meant to X out the Christ name but X was a symbol for Christ -- also as a sign of the cross.

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #9

"TWall":

"You're actually right for once, good for you! Now, do you have statistics on who drives fast or slow? Have you pulled over slow drivers to ask them if they are 'lefties' or 'righties'? And also, did you even stop to think that the majority of people in this state are 'righties' therefore the...."

JJ:

As I've said, it has been the Democrats who have supported the painfully slow 55 MPH limit and the Republicans who have been against it. That tells me the Democrats as a whole have no problem with slow driving. I'm sure there are a few exceptions, however. I would guess that you like higher speed limits.

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #10

"TWall":

"A few exceptions? What are you smoking? I would love some! Really think about it Joseph, try to think about it. The majority of people in THIS state are on 'the right.' Which would mean the majority of people that drive slow in THIS state are also on 'the right.'"

JJ:

Your reasoning has a major flaw here. If we extended it we could say; The majority of people in THIS state are on "the right." Which would mean the majority of people that go to the Shakespeare Festival in THIS state are also on "the right."

And how about the majority who go attend Seirra Club Meetings or Cross Dressing Parties?

Every group is not on the Right here just because it is a Republican State.

By the way, the last sentenced of my last post which was cut off read:

"I would guess that you like higher speed limits but "GrayMatter" would be OK with the 55 MPH limit."

Then after this she posted:

"Obviously the 55 law was a win for the dems."

Looks like I was right there.

  

Dec 21, 2009 -- Post #11

"GrayMatter":

"How does your invocation of the 55 law prove slow drivers are democrats?"

JJ:

Again, I will not repeat your incessant insults.

I never said it proved it, but said it was anecdotal evidence. It is an ironclad fact though that more Democrats want and will put up with lower speed limits and Republicans, as a whole, want faster ones. It is therefore, logical by extension to conclude that Democrats drive slower -- since they support slower speeds.

  

Dec 22, 2009 -- Post #1

In response to a poster who said Obama was like Jefferson, JJ wrote:

I find it ironical that a person of the Left would compare Obama to a slaveholder president, a fact often demonized by them.

There's lots of other differences between Jefferson and Obama. Perhaps most significant is illustrated by Jefferson's statement that "the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale." He believed the national debt should be eliminated.

If Jefferson were alive today he would have been a member of the NRA as he was firmly against gun control.

Jefferson supported States Rights and minimal government kind of like Libertarians today. He said: "The spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions that I wish it to be always kept alive."

He was totally against policy making from the bench. He wrote: To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions [is] a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.

Finally, he considered majority will sacred, even if it went against his belief system. This runs 100% counter to Obama who is pushing a health care system down our throats that is only supported by 37% of the public.

If Jefferson were alive today and being attacked for his beliefs you can bet Pelosi, Reid and Obama would have been leading the parade.

  

Dec 23, 2009 -- Post #1

JJ:

Every time I see a headline with the words "LDS" or "Christian" in it I know what I'm going to read there. One could just go back to the last comments and cut and past and this would save a lot of effort writing repeated trite bigoted statements like:

"Mormons are trying to take over."
"They're forcing their religion down my throat."
"I hate Mormons."
"They hate gays."
"They are hypocrites, etc."

The fact is that your neighbor, whoever he is, has beliefs different than your own and would like to see his ideas implemented more than your ideas and beliefs. Get over it. Let the majority rule and go from there.

  

Dec 23, 2009 -- Post #2

"Ordinary" wrote:

"The United States is not a democracy. The United States is a republic. The law of the land is the Constitution. We use democracy to bring about representation. Majority rule would be frightening indeed. What if the majority decided that everyone with green eyes should be put in prison?"

JJ:

How's that Republic working out for you with Obama? The majority are supposed to be represented, but we are not. In majority rule the Constitution would have to be upheld, unless the majority change it -- which the document presently allows. The majority are against this health care program Obama is shoving down our throats. Right now we have minority rule and that's the only way you'd get someone put in prison for having green eyes -- or being a Jew. You can't find any actual policy that has been voted on by the majority that matches the minority rule of the likes of Hitler or Stalin.

"The will of the people ... is the only legitimate foundation of any government"
  -- Thomas Jefferson

  

Dec 23, 2009 -- Post #3

"BoiseBlue" wrote:

"Majority public opinion has been on the wrong side of the vast majority of issues that concern equal rights throughout history. For many years the majority supported Slavery, was against equal rights for women, against equal rights for non-whites, was against mixed marriage and is now against equal rights for gay people. Go back far enough and majority public opinion was for the genocide of native americans, who they considered less than human."

JJ:

I never said majority will is perfect, but it is usually five steps ahead of Congress in common sense. Whenever the majority will is represented freedom moves forward. Each time freedom has gone backwards it is because minority will has prevailed. You never see Hitler type policies applied through majority vote.

"I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law."
  -- Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793. ME 1:332

  

"GrayMatter" wrote:

"Fact: Our country is a representative republic government."

JJ:

Glad you are aware of this.

  

"GrayMatter":

"Fact: The majority of people believe our health system needs reformed, so their chosen [read: elected] representatives are reforming it. Could not be more simple to comprehend."

JJ:

Fact: The majority of the people are strongly against the Democrat plan. They do not want just any partisan plan. The demand a good one.

  

"GrayMatter":

"Fact: Representatives are beholden via elections to their constituency, not the entire U.S. population."

JJ:

You are right sir! Your prize is in the mail.

  

"GrayMatter":

"Fact: The majority of the American populace voted for Gore in 2000. The U.S. republic electorate system, working perfectly, albeit painfully, led to the man receiving less than the majority of votes being seated as president. This happened because this is a republic, not a majority democracy."

JJ:

You are right again. Two in a row. Good for you.

  

"GrayMatter":

"Jefferson even referenced the tyranny of the majority in his writings as this nation evolved and states began to enact the constitution."

JJ:

Sorry. You missed on this one big time. Jefferson said no such thing. Instead he said things like this:

"The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail."
  -- Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809.

Thanks for the dissertation GrayMatter. When I mention my support for majority will I usually get resistance from the far Right. It is interesting to be lectured to by a far Left person as yourself.

You seem to have the idea that I want to tear down the Constitution and rebuild, but such is not the case. I think a lot like Jefferson and that is our representatives should represent the will of the people and not their party leaders, not pressure groups and not sell their votes for money.

Jefferson thought that the government should follow the will of the majority in every instance that was feasible within the framework of the Constitution. The initiatives that are presently put forward would be right up his alley as they are also up mine. See the following for additional quotes from him on majority rule.

"Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends, the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them."
  -- Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809. ME 16:337

"Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, I deem [one of] the principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
  -- Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801. ME 3:321

"[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law."
  -- Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808. ME 12:18

"We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong."
  -- Thomas Jefferson to John Breckenridge, 1800.