2010-1-25 04:50:00
JJ:
It is amazing to me that the Left is in such a panic to force Obamacare upon us when an increasing majority are against it. If history provides any lesson it is that whatever is passed will cost much more than expected and fraud and corruption will only increase. Since Obama wants to give illegals citizenship then a good portion of the money will go to what are now illegal aliens.
What a time to commit this nation to additional trillions in debt. You'd think that if the Left wanted to borrow trillions that they would put everything to fight global warming because they see that as a much greater threat than lack of healthcare. Gore thinks civilization itself is at stake.
If we are to go into more debt wouldn't it be much better to spend borrowed money on the jobless and homeless? What's more important? To get Viagra and other drugs to patients or to feed and cloth people who may freeze this winter?
90 percent of health problems can be solved with a few pennies with of herbs and change in lifestyle but those not having jobs need real help. Where is some common sense in priorities here?
JJ:
Mr. Wright has taken the typical illusionary approach of many on the left. When an argument is presented, instead of countering it with logic, they attack the messenger. He says that John Lott should not speak on global warming or is not to be trusted because he is not a climatologist. It matters not that he has a PhD in economics.
The idea that a supposed expert in a field can see the whole picture better than you and me is often false. Bill Gates majored in law and dropped out of college. Does this mean that he was not qualified to delve into computers?
It is often true that researchers have such narrow focus that the bigger picture has to be put together by someone of common sense out of the field who just gathers the data and reaches an enlightened conclusion.
Once that data on a subject is available it only takes a little logic to see the truth.
Ignaz Semmelweis was just such a person.
In 1847 he reasoned that the death rate in hospitals would go down if doctors just washed their hands. Because he had no way of proving the existence of germs the "consensus" of almost all doctors was that he was not only wrong but dangerous. He was eventually declared insane and he was committed in an asylum and died there.
A short time later Louis Pasteur proved him right and the consensus the shifted to a more logical conclusion. The doctors who condemned Ignaz with their supposed superior science are a disgrace in history.
The same is now happening with orthodox global warming theory. Warming peaked in 1998 and by some measurements it is now cooling. Even the orthodox scientists are now recognizing this to their embarrassment when they see undeniable facts like Arctic summer sea ice increasing by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007. Check this out:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE- The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
Actually, I'd be happy if it continued warming a while longer.
JJ:
Rex may be a strange character but the prophecy does seem to be coming true. The Constitution and Bill of Rights as designed by the founders is hanging by a thread as many parts are set aside, challenged or negated in some fashion.
For example, hear Obama in his own words complain about how the Constitution does not allow for the redistribution of wealth.
See:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkpdNtTgQNM
Or see the transcript at:
http://www.jbs.org/jbs-news-feed/3721
"Gimmeshelter":
"The writer complained that Lott was being quoted as an expert in the discussion of climatology."
JJ:
Well you and the writer are 100 percent wrong. Lott was not speaking as a climate expert but referred to other experts. He made reference to 450 peer-reviewed papers by experts in the field. You or I or anyone can reference this. That does not mean we are claiming to be climatologists? Duh...
Watch I can even do it. Here it is. Read them and weep:
http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer
-reviewed-papers-supporting.html
If you think referencing this means I am claiming to be a climatologist then I have a newly remodeled capital building I'll sell you cheap.
"GimJJ":
"This has become a recurring problem in the conservative circle: Quoting non-experts, or, even quoting Fox network employees to substantiate their positions."
JJ:
The 450 people referenced are experts. The real problem is the extreme distortion and fabrication from the Left.
"GrayMatter":
"Do you get a special treat every time you repeat the same tiresome, boring story or Fauxnews opinion?"
JJ:
I didn't quote anything from Fox news. Your mistake is understandable since according to your own words you do not even watch TV, which would mean you do not watch Fox News.
Are you then just making things up though a need to attack?
You are also concerned about Lott following self interest.
Newsflash!
Every life form in the universe follows self-interest. Whether or not self-interest is followed is not the place to look for to find truth. One must look at the argument, and then use the rusty ole mind to discern whether it be true or false.
"Boise49ers":
"Or just plain ignored it like the last guy in office. Quote: 'It's just a GD piece of paper'."
JJ:
That statement is hearsay. There is no evidence Bush said that. That's like saying that Obama or his family admitted he was born out of the country. There is also hearsay around that.
"RunStavrosRun":
"Joseph, you're such a sheep. Have you actually read the transcript? Not the John Birch taken-out-of-context garbage, but the actual transcript? The topic of the panel discussion (it wasn't an interview) was the impact that Scotus had on the civil rights movement. Never did he call for redistribution."
JJ:
Yes, I read it. Here is part of what he said: Obama complained that "the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, ... (The Supreme Court) didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution".
"Webfoot":
"Stating a fact is a complaint? Let me point out that 1 percent of Americans control 40 percent of our country's wealth. Is that a complaint? Obama was pointing out that by focusing on the courts, community organizations took their eye off remedial solutions to systemic poverty."
JJ:
Sure sounds like a complaint to me. He said in the quote that it was a tragedy that more "redistributive change" was not brought about.
"Bcmboise1" wrote:
"I managed to survive in that LDS [Mormon] bastion for fifteen years and, unfortunately, Religious Rex represents all the rural, radical, right wing, extremist, bigotted, prejudiced, republican, government subsidized farmers that spend every morning in coffee shops from Island Park to Pocatello drinking refill after refill of free coffee."
JJ:
Drinking coffee? That would be the liberal, left of center Mormons doing that -- The Harry Reid branch.
"Becourteous" wrote:
"So, if the constitution doesn't allow for redistribution, how do we have Medicare, Medicaid, Welfare, Farm Subsidies, Social Security, energy subsidies, food stamps, county indigent programs, etc.?"
JJ:
That's why the Constitution is hanging by a thread. There are many things we are doing that are contrary to or not conforming to the original intent.
"AlDentePickles" wrote:
"The original intent was that it be a living document and prescribed how the branches of government were to react as times change. It is not hanging by a thread -- it is working beautifully if anything."
JJ:
So you must think it's beautiful that the First, Second and other amendments are threatened?
The changes they envisioned were to take place by changing or adding amendments, not through the courts, as used as a vehicle of the Left.
"Webfoot" wrote:
"Thomas Paine proposed an inheritance tax to fund a 'social security' system. Franklin argued that 'no man ought to own more property than needed for his livelihood; the rest, by right, belonged to the state.' Our founding fathers saw economic justice as part of social justice."
JJ:
The Constitution is not composed of isolated opinions, but a document representing the whole composite thinking of the Founders. We need to go by what it says and if we do not like it then change it, not violate it.
"Webfoot" wrote:
"See:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/nra_targets_obama.html "
JJ:
Our friend John Lott fact checked the fact checkers and caught them at their usual distortions. Read this and weep:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,427347,00.html
Oh, no! I referenced Fox News for the first time in months. Here come the anti-free-speechers!
"RunStavrosRun" wrote:
"YOU HAVE TO ARGUE WITH WHAT HE SAID, JOSEPH, NOT WITH WHAT HE DIDN'T SAY! Admit it, Joseph, you're lying!!!"
JJ:
If you think Obama's own words are a lie then I guess you have a problem with both parties.
"Webfoot" wrote:
"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. -- Michael Crichton"
JJ:
He was correctly talking about science there. Politics, a much different animal, is consensus. Global Warming has turned into a political fight lacking real science.
"RunStavrosRun" wrote:
"Hey, I just went to the original transcript and searched for the word 'tragedy.' Guess what? It didn't come up. Know why? 'CAUSE HE NEVER SAID IT!"
JJ:
Okay, you're right. He said tragedies, plural, instead. Here's Obama's actual words.
"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, [...] I think, the TRAGEDIES of the civil rights movement was because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that."
So we tragically "suffer" because the courts were unable to authorize redistribution of wealth in violation of the Constitution.
"RunStavrosRun" wrote:
"Continued...but thank you for finally quoting his actual words. Now for the lesson: In the phrase "...tragedies of the civil rights movement...," the word 'tragedies' is a reference to 'civil rights movement.' Although the word 'court' does indeed appear in the same sentence, it is NOT a...."
JJ:
He said we still suffer from the fact that redistributive change was not brought about. Suffering is tragic.
"Webfoot" wrote:
"You: in need of remedial reading.
"You: too immature to man-up.
"You: no longer worth a reply."
JJ:
Yeah, anytime someone does not see through the rose colored filters of a Lefty then their mind isn't right.
"RunStavrosRun" wrote:
"You're grasping, Joseph, but you're right; suffering is tragic. BUT WHERE YOU'RE STILL WRONG in that he doesn't blame the government for said lack of change. To the contrary, he says that the civil rights movement became TOO focused on the courts. Why can't you just admit that you're wrong?"
JJ:
Me grasping at straws? You're the one painfully prolonging this discussion on nuances. That's what I was saying. They became too focussed on the courts and suffered because the courts did not succeed in redistributing wealth. They therefore had to take another approach. Obama is willing to use courts, groups or whatever to circumvent the constitution -- whatever works.
"Flatline" wrote:
"In other words, to suggest that any skeptic at odds with the scientific consensus is correct and a 'victim,' simply by holding a different theory than the majority is ludicrous."
JJ:
I wasn't saying that at all. Argue with what I do say. Not with what I do not say. Many times consensus opinion is correct, but other times it is not. People should be free to go against it and not be attacked for it.
"Liberal_philia" wrote:
"Joseph reads his news too. Every week in the 'National Enquirer'."
JJ:
Just partially following your lead. I do skip over your favorite though: "News from the Mothership."
"Liberal_philia" wrote:
"Wrong! I get my news from 'The Daily Show' with John Stewart and Steven Colbert...
"Now, don't be sayin' nuttin bad about my boys....
JJ:
Weren't those two beamed down from the Mothership?
Copyright © 2010 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved