Dog Brothers Public Forum

HOME | PUBLIC FORUM | MEMBERS FORUM | INSTRUCTORS FORUM | TRIBE FORUM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
December 07, 2016, 04:14:59 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
Welcome to the Dog Brothers Public Forum.
98781 Posts in 2346 Topics by 1082 Members
Latest Member: James
* Home Help Search Login Register
  Show Posts
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 128
3751  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Here is one allusion to Kissinger on: February 25, 2012, 10:01:22 AM
A little vague but there is a vague allusion to Kissinger being on the take to a Chinese government's technology tech company.

Well I guess he had to impress his celebrity girlfriends (Jill St John among others) somehow (money?).  Certainly not his looks though I guess it could have been his brains:

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1891&dat=19830810&id=TZ8fAAAAIBAJ&sjid=HNYEAAAAIBAJ&pg=3089,1858930
3752  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Xi Jinging "we welcome China" on: February 25, 2012, 08:39:12 AM
Stated by Obama to the presumed next leader of China.  He has children going to Harvard and does business here in the US frequently.   He is also a son of a Mao Communist and perfectly capable of poltical crackdowns at home.

Seems to me Sun Tzu would be very proud.  They are not just "competing" with us.  They are at war with us for dominance IMO.

Larry Ellison the CEO of Oracle operates his business like a Samurai warrior.  Sun Tzu sells as much as a businees book as for military doctrine.

At the very least it seems clear to me China is competing with us as warriors. 

So do we play dumb in public like Obama and play rough behind the scenes (I think, I hope we are doing that) or do we publically call their bluff?

*** Breaking Now:Obama CampaignMiddle EastNational SecurityThe Obama EconomySearch   Xi Jinping: The Princelings’ Prince
Next leader of China sends daughter to Harvard, crushes dissent

Xi Jinping / AP
   
BY: Bill Gertz - February 16, 2012 5:00 am
During Chinese Vice President Xi Jinping’s visit to Washington, D.C., this week, the media glossed over several facts about the man expected to be China’s next supreme ruler, including his ties to the Chinese military, his connections to U.S. business interests, and his past role in violations of Tibet’s human rights.

Xi is the most powerful of China’s “princelings,” the term for powerful offspring of Chinese communist leaders past and present. Princelings control key sectors of China’s government and economy, drive western luxury cars, and send their spouses and children to the United States to live and work.

Xi is no exception.

At the powerful Central Military Commission (CMC), Xi worked as an office secretary under Gen. Geng Biao for three years beginning in 1979. The work for the military commission is significant since it holds the key to power in China.

Geng’s fortunes rose after he was ordered to take control of broadcast and television stations from the communist faction headed by Mao’s wife and three others known as the Gang of Four. The quelling of the gang led to the rise of reformer Deng Xiaoping, who put China on its current modernization path and away from the turmoil of the Cultural Revolution.

Xi’s wife is a singer in the People’s Liberation Army and performs in a PLA uniform, further highlighting his ties to the military. His daughter, Xi Mingze, secretly attends Harvard under a cover name and her two-dozen man security detail may be collecting intelligence for the Chinese, according to U.S. officials.

The son of Xi Zhongxun, a first-generation communist revolutionary who died in 2002, Xi was picked several years ago to become the party’s General Secretary in place of current Secretary Hu Jintao during a major conference expected this fall.

If the communist succession takes place as planned, observers predict Xi likely will get only half the power at first and Hu will remain head of the CMC, the party organ that runs the military and is the ultimate power in China.

Xi is one of a number of several princelings who have come under scrutiny in China from more doctrinaire communists. The power of the hardline element continues to grow in China; though they welcome China’s growing prosperity, they believe the regime is insufficiently Marxist-Leninist as developed under Mao Zedong.

One such hardliner is Bo Xilai, the provincial Party chief in Chongqing accused of corruption by deputy mayor Wang Lijun, a subordinate who tried to defect to the U.S. consulate in Chengdu but was turned away after spending the night in the consulate.

Bo is considered a “neo-Maoist” and is pushing for a seat on the nine-member Politburo Standing Committee, the collective dictatorship that controls China.

Bo, like Xi, is a princeling and his son, like Xi’s daughter, is a student at Harvard.

Many of the communist princelings live or travel frequently to the United States and are engaged in business dealings, interacting with and influencing American policy analysts and businessmen.

For example, during Xi’s Washington visit, the incoming leader met with former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, who runs Kissinger Associates and who helps U.S. companies get business deals in China. Xi also met former Clinton administration National Security Adviser Sandy Berger during the visit. Berger’s Stonebridge International also does business in China.

Xi met with Defense Secretary Leon Panetta and a spokesman said the meeting included a “wide-ranging discussion, with Xi urging the U.S. and China to strengthen military exchanges.”

But a U.S. official said that Panetta was surprised by Xi’s lack of candor or response to questions regarding cyber intrusions and advanced weapons, among other issues.

A second U.S. official also said Panetta would travel to China.

Owing in part to his family position and in part to his future place in the Chinese hierarchy, it is difficult to pin down Xi’s exact policy sentiments.

Human rights issues are a stumbling block for Xi and his U.S. counterparts; human rights watchdogs have criticized Xi during the visit for his role in ongoing repression in China.

The group Chinese Human Rights Defenders (CHRD) issued a report that said the wining and dining of the communist leader in Washington is taking place at the same time China is cracking down on dissidents.

Tibet has been a major target of the Chinese in recent months, as several Tibetan monks have set themselves on fire to protest Chinese repression.

Xi traveled to Tibet in July with Chen Bignde, chief of the military’s general staff to celebrate the 60th anniversary of what China calls the “peaceful liberation of Tibet.” The Chinese takeover involved a military assault on the mountainous region that included mass killings and shelling of Buddhist monasteries.

“This seems a strange time for the U.S. to engage in diplomatic niceties or goodwill overtures to China’s likely future president,” said CHRD International Director Renee Xia. “The U.S. should instead hold Xi and other Chinese leaders to account for the Chinese government’s escalating human rights violations at home and its heartless position towards the suffering of the Syrian people.”

China vetoed a U.N. resolution earlier this month that would have condemned Syria’s government for the brutal crackdown in Syria.

Xia said the Obama administration should highlight the worsening human rights abuses in China.

President Obama, Vice President Joseph Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and Defense Secretary Leon Panetta made only vague references in public during the Xi visit to China’s human rights abuses, its unfair trade and industrial practices, its military buildup, and its weapons proliferation to rogue states.

The CHRD said that it is “uncertain” whether Xi’s rise to power later this year will lead to improvements in China’s human rights or for future political reform.

CHRD said Xi was Communist Party secretary in Zhejiang from 2002 to 2007, one of the worst periods for democracy and human rights activists in the affluent coastal province, where rampant human rights violations were reported and for which Xi was not held accountable.

“While Xi held a position with the highest authority in the province, the Zhejiang government stood out in its zealous persecution of political dissidents, writers, underground Christians, and human rights activists,” the group said.

Xi also directed the round up and repression of democracy and rights advocates in China prior to the 2008 Olympics in Beijing.

This entry was posted in China and tagged China, hu jintao, Xi Jinping. Bookmark the permal
3753  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Free Speech vs. Islamic Fascism (formerly Buy DANISH!!!) on: February 24, 2012, 02:28:07 PM
"The Judge not only ruled in favor of the defendant, but called Mr. Perce a name and told him that if he were in a Muslim country, he’d be put to death."

I guess the fact we are in the US is no reason to uphold the law.   So here is an activist judge enforcing Sharia law in the US?

"**Imagine if the roles were reversed. You'd have national media coverage and the DOJ would be investigating.**"

That is the truth. 

I suppose Obama is going to apologize for this?



3754  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Energy Politics & Science on: February 24, 2012, 10:19:34 AM
Sort of like Marc Levin's broadcast last night who responded to Brockster's assertion that went something like, "Republicans have three answers for the gas problem: drill drill drill."

Levin pointed out the shear stupidity and contempt for Americans by this comment.  Gas doesn't come from gas pumps.  Yes to get  it we have to drill.  And no we can't replace oil with wind and solar.

3755  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Brock is a bit nervous if you ask me on: February 23, 2012, 04:30:45 PM
Brock also with corporate tax plan.  At least the idea of fixing taxes has traction if the biggest White House liberal is running scared enough to try to beat the Repubs to the punch with his won tax plan before his election.

Let's see him running for cover -

Suddenly he is a big fan of natural gas.

Suddenly whispers from the WH that military force in Iran may be needed.

Suddenly the Bamster is for corporate tax streamlining.

Doesn't fit with his usual narative does it.

Of course we have also lerned not to trust what he says but watch what he and his minions (like Eric Holder) do.
3756  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: February 23, 2012, 01:51:45 PM
Crafty,

Take heart from this poll just off drudge.  Like DMG pointed out, its way to early:

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/gop-presidential-primary/212225-gallup-romney-leads-obama-by-four-points
3757  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: The American Creed: Our Founding Fathers: on: February 22, 2012, 02:48:21 PM
Coincidence you post quote from T. Jefferson.  while looking around the webiste of the National Muesem of African American History and Culture I came across this photo of "Jefferson", aka Isaac Granger who died a free man in the 1840s and hence this photo of him exists.  He, his two brothers, and parents were slaves of Jefferson:

http://www.slaveryatmonticello.org/slavery-at-monticello/enslaved-families-monticello/granger-family

Question posed:

"how could the author of the Declaration of Independence have also been a slave owner?"

I don't know how to answer that except that the Declaration can be seen as aspirational and since no one was or is perfect we all strive to live up to its stated goal.
3758  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 22, 2012, 01:57:13 PM
Bigdog,

No offense taken and your posts are very informative.

"law, writ large, has said that they... and people and political institutions have accepted and acquiecsed." 

My only question would be have the "people" really accepted and acquiesced.

The people don't have a say in Court decisions.   Most don't even know what is going on.  And I don't recall ever being asked if it was OK to hoist on the "majority" requirements for wheelchair parking spots and wheelchair ramps.

As for the disabilities thing I guess it is part legislative and part judicial.

As for the gay marriage issue I suppose it is part "the squeaky wheel" - gay infatada, mass media opinion, demogaguery, party politics.
I do not beleive most people in the US believe in gay marriage or adoption.  I do believe that most probably don't care about bothering gays otherwise.  A poll that is announced that most believe gay marriage is ok?  Oh comon!

But that is media manipulation. 

I am rambling here.

"the Constitution, and also that it has holes, and also that there has to be interpretation"

Back to your point - agreed.


3759  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / special accomodations for disabled. on: February 22, 2012, 12:56:51 PM
As a physician I know we are not loved.  Now we are part of the 1% (thanks to Columbia Univerity professor Jeff Sachs - who I am sure has donated every cent from his books, magazine writings, salary and MSNBC appearances to starving children all around the world). 

I don't complain much about malpractice and there are many excellent ethical attorneys.  But this?

http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2009/01/05/prca0105.htm
3760  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 22, 2012, 12:45:38 PM
Bigdog,
There is no end to the situations that can arise.

One aspect of the the disability situation is the requirement for disabled parking places mandated.  And wheelchair access.

I was thinking a lot about this.   While it is a "nice" and compassionate I still don't get why everyone else is required to circumnavigate these accomodations and business entities must pay for all this for the minority disabled.

Yes, if I ever get stuck in a wheelchair I will think differently due to emotion...

I don't get the "entitlement" adjective to this.  Why are there so entitlements that cost many people money to pay for?

Why are not the payers entitled to their money?
3761  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Israel, and its neighbors on: February 22, 2012, 12:31:50 PM
"What is needed is a Palestinian version of the Arab revolutions that have swept the region: a mass movement demanding freedom, dignity, a just peace, real democracy and the right to self-determination. We must take the initiative, practice self-reliance and pursue a form of nonviolent struggle that we can sustain without depending on others to make decisions for us or in our place."

 Well all you need do is recognize Israel "guarantee" a peaceful co-existence and you won't have to go on hunger strikes.

 

3762  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Santorum on: February 21, 2012, 04:15:49 PM
"That pretty much says it all. With Santorum launching one social issues bomb after another, there is no time to talk about the economy. Is this the Democratic Party’s dream, or what? In a national poll that came out today, Santorum is leading Mitt Romney by eight points among likely Republican voters. Can Republicans possibly be that foolish? Is it conceivable that a president with Obama’s lousy record could coast to victory, virtually by default, because the Republicans nominate a candidate who would rather talk about gynecology than debt? At the moment, that prospect does not seem far-fetched."

I think a lot of Repubs active in primaries are tea party types and libertarians.  The latter are Ron Paul followers and the former are anyone with extremely strict conservative values that is willing to take a stand and fight.

Radio hosts like Levin are staunchly for these candidates like Santorum.  He was a giant supporter of Bachman, Palin and that girl in Deleware and the one in Nevada.   They did get some elected.

While I personally support most of all their views to ignore the middle of the road voters who vote with what ever the whim of the day is is suicide for the party.  Levin is wrong.  We cannot just get anyone in there just because they are conservative.  We will lose.  And that IS worse - not better.

None of these people have the charisma to charm over the "independents" or whatever else that voting group(s) is called.  Maybe Newt could have if he wasn't as Crafty aptly put, "flawed".

Mitt doesn't have a lot of charisma but his views are more mainstream and hopefully will appeal to the deciding block of voters that somehow always seem to go with the flow.  And the flow is can Obama bribe more of them then could be convinced they are not better off then four years ago and Mitt can improve upon that.

Since Mitt is not charismatic the election may well be determined as some predict - by how the economy  is doing in Nov.

I am hoping the economy tanks - for one month before the election and rebounds in time for Mitt in 01/14.  grin
3763  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 21, 2012, 04:01:53 PM
"A gay person can stay single of course, but they do not have the right to pursue their happiness and marry the person of their choice.  It's like black and white.  And by not being able to marry the person of their choice, besides the personal issues, they are denied numerous other benefits of a married couple."

JDN,

You are missing the point.  They do have the right to live with whomever they want and persue their happiness.

But you hit the nail on the head about the benefits.  A lot of this is all about money.

It is not "black and white" which of course is always used as the argument.  It is not race.

I guess we could say it is gender.  Certainly exact gender equality IS an agenda with liberals.

The family structure is suffering from all this.  That is a price we are paying.
3764  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 21, 2012, 02:07:15 PM
"but they are entitled to certain accommodations because a federal law was passed by the people's representatives and signed by the President.  It was not an unenumerated right found in the constitution"

Exactly.  Accomodations that the majority now have to make for disabled minority is only because of laws passed by laws intended for compasionate reasons.   

A law can thus be passed that makes virtually anything an entitlement by people's "representatives".

In a way however this law does make the majority actually have ot make way for SPECIAL accomodations for the disabled.

I suppose laws that held for racial considerations in say college admissions could be also thus categorized.

I suppose that passing gay marriage into a law is not 'special' per se but allowing that minority the same government recognized privilege as non gays.

The gay marriage thing is a movement that will continue on ithrough infinity till they get what they insist on.

The majority can argue forever it is just a matter of time before the mority says al right we have had enough.

Here is what you want now will please stop the "reverse harrasment".

3765  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: February 21, 2012, 10:06:23 AM
Doug,

Good point.  No need to panic as it is way too early.   The Repubs have not consolidated and are not focused on Obama and the MSM is having a great time yucking up their attacking each other.   

When reporters go out on the street and ask pedestrian basic questions about politics, the direction of the country, history, etc.  It is amazing how little people know.  It seems most people are not paying attention or thinking beyond the headlines if even that.

I guess that is one reason why it is so easy to bribe people for votes and blame the "rich".

Gallup says the unempolyment rate is 9% - watch for all sorts of explanations why this is wrong for the OBama outlets, why their calculations are misleading and for the WH to dispute the numbers, and finally "it would be far worse without Obama".  Anything but the truth and accepting any responsibility.
3766  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Scientific American Michael Mann on: February 20, 2012, 02:40:35 PM
I am not for or against "climate change" resulting from human behavior.  I am simply confused.

***Michael Mann Defends Climate Computer Models
Penn State climate modeler Michael Mann talks about what computer models can tell us--and what they don't need to. David Biello reports

January 10, 2012 | 120

"Even in high school my idea of a good time was sitting in front of a computer and solving problems." Climatologist Michael Mann. “And that has always been true. I love using computational methods to learn about the way, hopefully, the way the world actually works.”

Some critics, such as physicist Freeman Dyson, charge that climate change science relies too much on such computer models. And even worse, that the climate scientists behind them are too much in love with their computational creations. Such mathematical approximations are crude, failing to capture the real world climate impacts of a cloud, for example. That makes them useful for understanding climate but not for predicting climate change, Dyson has argued. I asked Mann in a recent phone interview how he responded to such arguments.

"I have to wonder if Freeman Dyson will get on an airplane or if he’ll drive a car because a lot of the modern day conveniences of life and a lot of our technological innovations of modern life are based on phenomena so complicated that we need to be able to construct models of them before we deploy that technology.

“In the case of the climate, of course, there is only one Earth, so we can’t do experiments with multiple Earths and formulate the science of climate change as if it’s an entirely observationally based, controlled experiment. We need to rely on conceptual models of the system we’re studying and it’s no different in any other field of science. In fact, the way science progresses is by conceptual models being put forward and then testing them against observations. One of the most, I think, striking examples of that was just within the last month, this announcement, the Higgs Boson.

“Its existence was predicted by the standard model of particle physics and the fact that there’s—we got a glimpse of it, it looks like it may very well be there—is a real victory for that model of science where you test, you put forward conceptual models of the way the world or the universe works and test those models against the observations and see the extent to which they can predict new observations and when they do, it gives you increased confidence in the models.

“It’s no different in the case of climate change.  The models are simply at some level a formulation of our conceptual understanding and when someone says they don't like models then I’m wondering what alternative they have in mind.

“How do they formalize their conceptual understanding? Through back-of-the-envelope, poorly conceived thought experiments?  It's somewhat bewildering when I hear something like that from a premier scientist, and I think it belies a misunderstanding of the way models are used. In climate science, for example, where we don't need an elaborate climate model to understand the basic physics and chemistry of greenhouse gases, so at some level the fact that increased CO2 warms the planet is a consequence of very basic physics and chemistry.

“The details, how much warming you get, depend on things like feedbacks. And you can’t incorporate feedbacks through a back of the envelope approach.  You actually have to critically think about the interactions that take place in this very complex system. And those feedbacks ultimately determine the extent to which that initial warming will be amplified, but they don’t even change the fact that you elevate greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere and you’ll get a warming of the surface. That’s basic physics and chemistry and people who claim that they don’t believe that, they don’t believe we’re warming the planet through increasing CO2 levels because of climate models, they don’t understand the fact that you don’t need a climate model to come to that conclusion. It's basic physics and chemistry.

“The climate models come in because we wanna know how that's modified by feedback.  What are the important feedbacks?  How will atmospheric circulation patterns change? And again, does Freeman Dyson, assuming he is willing to get on an airplane even though models have been used to test the performance of the airplane, assuming he does and he knows he’s going somewhere where they’ve predicted, where weather models have predicted rainfall for the next seven days, does he not pack his umbrella because he doesn’t believe the models? It's just in that case the worst that will happen is somebody gets wet when they wouldn’t otherwise have. In this case, the worst that can happen is that we ruin the planet.”

—David Biell


Makes you wonder why to spite such easily obtained search results the science ignorati continue to insists the models are wrong. It is like they have no interests in the science but protecting some int
2. pterostyrax
12:02 PM 1/10/12Freeman Dyson has it right and Michael Mann has it wrong.

Here are just a few of the areas in which the GCMs and conclusions drawn from them are unequivocally wrong.

1. GCMs do not solve the original partial differential equations describing all of the mechanisms included in the models. They solve modified equations that are approximations of the originals, which, by definition, introduce errors in the solution.

2. GCMs require numerical rather than exact solutions of the equations. The numerical solutions introduce additional errors in reproducing the modified equations particularly with regards to the temporal/spatial scales used in the solution and the type of grid chosen to define the physical space modeled.

3. Once the forms of the modified equations and the temporal and spatial scales have been chosen, then one must setup initial and boundary conditions that define and then drive the simulations. Huge errors are introduced in the simulations as a result of uncertainties in defining these boundary conditions for all the myriad processes necessary in GCMs. Give the same model to 10 different modelers, and you will have 10 different results depending upon how the boundary conditions are specified.

4. The myriad processes involving physical, chemical, and biological interactions have their own problems including important processes left out and incomplete mathematical descriptions of the ones included with numerous simplifying assumptions, but the greatest problem is how the processes are parameterized and the specification of these parameters. Give the same model to 10 different modelers, and you will have 10 different results depending upon how the parameters are specified.

5. Even if all the previously described problems could be eliminated, GCMs, or any model for that matter, cannot predict the future. They can only say what would have happened given the proscribed initial and boundary conditions. No one can know the boundary conditions for the future.

Admittedly, the previous is a very brief discussion of why Dyson is right and Mann is wrong. I could easily write a long paper or even a book on the subject, but I will exit this comment with the following statement - If you can give the same model to 10 different modelers and obtain 10 different results, then that aint science, or at least what I have always believed to be science.


Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
3. pterostyrax
in reply to Trent1492
 
12:13 PM 1/10/12Riddle me this. Why are four different model output runs included when comparing to "observed" temperatures? Additionally, on another graph in the IPCC report, why are the results of 14 (I believe this number is correct) different GCMs averaged and then included in the comparison of computed versus observed temperatures?

I am fairly certain I know why.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
4. Trent1492
12:32 PM 1/10/12pterostyrax Says: Riddle me this. Why are four different model output runs included when comparing to "observed" temperatures?

Trent Says: Each models makes different assumptions about the future input of CO2. If you had even a smidgen of knowledge you would have know that one, Riddler.

http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-2.html

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
5. Trent1492
12:35 PM 1/10/12Anyone else wondering why Pterostyrax will not address the fact of the models and temperature match that is found in the peer reviewed literature? It is like he is in denial of reality. Funny that.


Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
6. pterostyrax
in reply to Trent1492
 
12:56 PM 1/10/12This graph is a comparison to computed versus OBSERVED temperatures. Four different carbon inputs for FUTURE inputs of carbon are irrelevant.

I do not mind the ad hominem, but at least get it right when you conduct one.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
7. Trent1492
01:13 PM 1/10/12Pterostyrax Says: This graph is a comparison to computed versus OBSERVED temperatures. Four different carbon inputs for FUTURE inputs of carbon are irrelevant.

Shorter Pterostryax: Please ignore the graph with observed temperatures and the models that reproduce them.




Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
8. just1observer
01:41 PM 1/10/12Michael Mann speaks the truth.

I believe that for Freeman Dyson to malign the accuracy of the current versions of weather models is a false issue and a cheep shot at weather scientists in general. Moreover, arguing over the accuracy of various weather models misses the main issues about the science of weather prediction and global warming.

There are a few things that we know from weather scientists with a high degree of confidence: (1) the earth is indeed warming; (2) human activity is indeed making a meaningful contribution to that global warming; (3) global warming is changing and will continue to change global weather patterns through a very complex set of interactions that we are only just beginning to identify, better yet fully understand, and (4)weather scientists who construct these models to try to identify and understand these interactions and then predict the consequences to test and improve their models are very much on the right track.

These scientific efforts should be supported by the larger scientific community as well as the public. It is an imperative for this science to advance.

If we were to stop or slow the creation, evolution, continuous testing, and improvement of these models we would be doing the world a great disservice.

Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
9. Trent1492
01:46 PM 1/10/12I think at least one note of clarification needs to be put here. It is blatantly obvious that Pterostyrax is engaging in obfuscation. Climate science has been making predictions and successful observations of those predictions since 1896. When Svante Arrhenius constructed a model of the atmosphere using nothing more than pencil and paper he made several key predictions:

1. Nights would warm faster days.

2. Winters would warm faster than Summers.

3. The Arctic would warm faster than anywhere else.

All of these predictions have been observed in the 20th and 21st century. Pterostyrax and friends want the public to not know of these and other successful predictions because their interests lay in the public being confused and ignorant. That is why they never ever address them. Ever.


Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
10. pterostyrax
in reply to just1observer
 
02:21 PM 1/10/12"If we were to stop or slow the creation, evolution, continuous testing, and improvement of these models we would be doing the world a great disservice."

No argument here. My and Dyson's argument is that the models are currently not ready for prime time for the reasons I elucidated among many more that could be brought to bear on the efficacy of GCMs. Because one can throw a host of equations at the real world does not mean that the set of the previous has any bearing on the latter. Point in question - Long Term Capital's economic numerical models.

However, the need to improve the modeling efforts does not change the fact that the current status of GCMs in providing some semblance of the real world and conclusions drawn therefrom is greatly lacking any firm basis regarding sound science.

3767  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Politics on: February 20, 2012, 01:01:45 PM
" is beginning to prepare for a face-off with [Rick] Santorum, just in case the former Pennsylvania senator captures the Republican nomination. The conventional wisdom among both Democrats and Republicans is that Obama would seek to tear Santorum limb-from-limb with attacks on his positions on abortion, contraception, and, now, prenatal testing."

Absolutely.  CNN and MSNBC are immediately all over this.  I don't recall whether it soloDAD or Kyra Phillips this AM with a sarcastic tone and detectable smug look asked someone about Santorum with, " I hear he is questioning Obama's theology"?

Never do any of these people ever question a peeping thing about Obama or use sarcastic tones and facial expressions.

Could anyone imagine her asking, "I heard Obama said they cling to their religion and guns" with any tone of disrespect?

I have to say though Santorum did not *sound* great defending himself this AM.
3768  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / The only new thing is a Presidential election on: February 20, 2012, 10:58:19 AM
The only thing new about Iran and nuclear weapons is the US election.   Nothing has changed.  All along it is obvious they are hell bent on getting them and nothing can stop them short of military force or some unexpected miracle.

The Republicans have sided with Israel on this.  Apparantly Obama is feeling the heat before his election and now he must decide what to do for his own skin - not Israel's.
3769  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process on: February 19, 2012, 11:39:57 AM
"The tenor of this piece is at considerable variance from GB."

Exactly my thoughts.  That is why I question the veracity or intellectual honesty of the author of the Wikipedia piece.  Based on that piece I question why GB and others (Hannity) hold Sunstein out as a looney liberal.  OTOH are GB and others the ones who are exaggerating?   I doubt they are.  Far more likely the Wikipedia piece is tempered to camouflage the truth.
Just like Obama conceals who he really is.  All the same with liberals.  They cannot tell us what they really think and aspire to.

Not if they want to stay in office unless they are from Barney Frank's (now ANOTHER freakin Kennedy's) or Pelosi's districts.
3770  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Re: Marriage and Family on: February 19, 2012, 11:33:13 AM
Well it is ironic that on one hand we have the gays making a big deal out of gay marriage (I can only wonder if it is all about the money somehow with regards to estates, taxes etc) while at the very same time we have a collapse of the insitution in the heterosexual side of the country. 

Divorce rates over 50%, single parenthood over 50% under age 30 and especially for the blue collars, minorities etc.

I guess one could argue that homosexuals fighting for this "right" is in a way a fight to preseve it as an insitution.

Yet nothing is stopping them from living together, working and the rest.  It has to be either some sort of in your face to the non gay community, or, gays are just as normal as non gays and not just living an alternative lifestyle, or about financial issues that come up related to marriage.  Or a combination thereof.

Who cares anymore when someone is gay?  I am fatigued by all this infatada about marriage, adoption, bullying (for God's sake if I turn on CNN one more time to see Anderson Cooper making a school bullying incident into an international scandal....)... the point is now I feel like I am the one being harrassed.  Yes I know I can change the TV station.
3771  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs/Sunstein on: February 19, 2012, 11:15:06 AM
The Economist has a lot to say about US government *over*regulation in this week's issue.  I saw this article on Cass Sunstein who is decried from the right as a big liberal.   Sunstein is marketed by the WH as being this big government 'spending/cut' Czar.   A lot of smoke and mirrors as one would expect from the Obama WH.  That said not all of Sunstein's opinions are that liberal though his stance on taxes certainly is one of a big liberal government cheerleader (see the Wikipedia piece on him below; I read with some skepticism for the objectivity of what shows up in Wikipedia).   

Certainly in making its analyses the OIRA appears to exaggerates the benefits, and minimize the costs of  any government program the WH wants to promote or conversely cut:

****..Deleting regulations
Of Sunstein and sunsets
Many barriers impede regulatory reform. The poor quality of the laws Congress produces is among the biggest
Feb 18th 2012 | NEW YORK | from the print edition

The busy nudgemeister .
CHEERS greeted Barack Obama’s hiring of Cass Sunstein away from the University of Chicago. Mr Sunstein, a lawyer, now head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, is in charge of lifting the heavy hand of regulation from America’s economy. Known for his clever economics, Mr Sunstein favours a “libertarian paternalism”; policies that nudge, but do not force, people to do the right things. For example, making people opt out instead of opting in to pension plans makes many more sign up, to their benefit. And Mr Sunstein has been involved in redesigning dietary recommendations and fuel-efficiency stickers for cars, making formerly confusing information more useful.

Mr Sunstein is now in charge of overseeing a year-old executive order from Mr Obama telling every agency to slim its rule book. Mr Sunstein says every one has complied, with 580 proposals received from the departments under his purview. (Independent agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission are not among them.) And he says real savings are on the way. Lifting a requirement for states to require pollution vapour-recovery systems will save $400m in five years. Making it easier for doctors and hospitals to participate in the Medicare programme for the elderly will save $5 billion. He adds that agencies have responded not grudgingly (the old stereotype of bureaucrats loth to surrender cash or power), but eagerly.
But the Obama administration has added to the rule book at the same time as it is trimming. And many of the rules are big: 194 of them, each with an economic impact (not necessarily a net cost) of $100m or more, have been published in the Federal Register. In George Bush’s first three years, 141 hit the books. Even if most have more benefits than costs, as the agencies’ economists calculate, the scope of regulation is not shrinking. The overall cost of regulation is unknown, and measurement controversial. One study for the Small Business Administration found that regulation cost $1.75 trillion a year in 2008, though many object to the analysis. It relies on a methodology, invented at the World Bank, which one of the bank’s researchers says was misused, and Mr Sunstein dismisses it as “an urban myth”.

Meanwhile, the executive agencies are accused of minimising costs by counting only hours spent on paperwork or money spent on kit to comply with regulation. The real costs may be found in the hard-to-calculate perversion of behaviour that over-regulation causes. At the same time, the benefits tallied up by regulators may be overvalued (see article). The agencies calculate their own numbers, using their own methodologies. But what no one doubts is that compliance with the ever-expanding rule book is wearisome and hard.

Furthermore, the politics of removing regulations is harrowing. Each removal must go through the same cumbersome process it took to put the regulation in place: comment periods, internal reviews and constant behind-the-scenes lobbying. Ironically, regulated industries may actually not want regulations removed. They have sunk costs into compliance, and do not want those costs taken away to the benefit of upstart competitors.

Many proposals are floated to deal with this last problem. One, supported by the Republican candidate Mitt Romney, is to remove one regulation for each new one that is proposed. A second idea is to create a truly independent scorer for regulatory costs and benefits, modelled on the widely respected Congressional Budget Office. A third is to create a board of outside grandees to help break political deadlocks, like the Base Realignment and Closure commission, which was able to prod Congress to shut down military bases. And yet another is creating a full-time advocate for regulatory rollback: one state, Kansas, has created an “Office of the Repealer”, which aggregates complaints and suggests repeals to the governor and legislature. Lastly, automatic “sunsets” of laws have their fans, though Congress could mindlessly reauthorise laws gathered up in omnibus bills (and a bitterly divided Congress might allow good laws to lapse).

Finally, one bad idea is the REINS bill. Passed by the House, it would involve Congress more heavily in rule-making. If there is a body worse than the executive agencies at this kind of thing, it is Congress. A 1999 study by the OECD found that poorly written laws, not subsequent rule-writing, were at the heart of America’s regulatory woes. (No one has been foolish enough to suggest that Congress has become wiser since then.) Jim Cooper, a Democratic House member from Tennessee, says of his colleagues: “People vote on things they have not read, do not have the time to read, and cannot read.” He further despairs of the power of special interests to bend Congress’s will: “There is a pimento lobby,” he says of those who fight for the interests of those who grow the small red peppers served inside olives. “You do not want to cross the pimento people.” In such an environment, getting things undone is at least as hard as getting them done, and perhaps harder still.****


More on Cass - he is a dog person  grin:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein
3772  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / No Mars gold rush in 20"49" on: February 19, 2012, 09:48:46 AM
http://news.discovery.com/space/mars-prospecting-ores-gold.html
3773  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: NASA, Space programs on: February 19, 2012, 09:45:46 AM
I wonder if there is any gold on Mars?   The trip could pay for itself
3774  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Decline, Fall, (and Resurrection?) of America on: February 19, 2012, 09:42:53 AM
Great post BG.  Fascinating discussion.  Lots to talk about.  Just some thoughts:

There is no mention (unless I missed it) of the difference between the nation wrecking entitlements we have in the US compared to China.  Does China face this problem.  Demographically doesn't China have a problem down the road with its one child policy essentially creating a future aging demographic burden  which is I read already an issue in Japan?

The economic interdependence of powers does indeed seem to make the prospect of destructive forms of war less likely.

But what about "soft" war?   (akin to soft power).  For example disabling our military through controlling the electronic brain center.

The people of our country now are far more focused on who is going to pay for the soaring costs health care, their retirements, help for increasing children of single parents, the soaring cost of higher education, etc.

Transfering wealth from those who have more to those who have less is not going to keep this country number one.  WE have become a nanny state.

3775  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Gertrude Stein - unusual and complex on: February 18, 2012, 01:49:53 PM
Certainly I have had some conflicts with my fellow Jews, particularly those who are liberal but nothing like this from one of the first openly lesbian celebrities who was a life long Republican, anti Roosevelt an New Deal dissenter.   Interesting since she was gay and female at a time when that was far more taboo than now.   Yet to nominate Hitler for the Nobel Peace prize in part for ridding Germany of Jews??  Wow. 
What was that all about?   
She later speaks of Roosevelt along with Trotzky, Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin in the same breath.  She certainly sounds like she believed in personal responsibility and freedom of thought and I think, at least later on from government.

****Institute for Historical Review

Gertrude Stein's Complex Worldview
Nobel Peace Prize for Hitler?
By Mark Weber

Scholars of the life of Gertrude Stein were recently startled to learn that in 1938 the prominent Jewish-American writer had spearheaded a campaign urging the Nobel committee to award its Peace Prize to Adolf Hitler. This was disclosed by Gustav Hendrikksen, a former member of the Nobel committee and now professor emeritus of Bible studies at Sweden's Uppsala University, in Nativ, a political magazine published in Israel. (Reports about this appeared in the New York Jewish community weekly Forward, Feb. 2, June 14, and Oct. 25, 1996.)

Hendrikksen, an avowed friend of Israel who is now in his late 80s, recalled that the Nobel committee rejected Stein's proposal "politely but firmly, citing among their reasons the attitude of the Nazi regime toward the Jews."

In the decades before her death in 1946, Stein was a widely acclaimed literary icon. As monarch of the "lost generation" of American expatriates in Paris during the 1920s and 1930s, she cultivated and influenced such literary figures as Ernest Hemingway and F. Scott Fitzgerald, as well as such artists as Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse. Her Paris home was a mecca for writers and artists. Stein's own "modernist" novels, memoirs, lectures and plays -- once celebrated as stylishly avant garde -- have not aged well. Today she is remembered almost as much for who she was as for what she wrote.

Born in Pennsylvania of a wealthy German-Jewish family, she was raised in the United States, and attended Radcliffe and Johns Hopkins universities. But it was during her years of expatriate living in France that she made her lasting mark.

'Hitler Ought to Have the Peace Prize'
Stein's seemingly paradoxical views about Hitler and fascism have never been a secret. As early as 1934, she told a reporter that Hitler should be awarded the Nobel peace prize. "I say that Hitler ought to have the peace prize, because he is removing all the elements of contest and of struggle from Germany. By driving out the Jews and the democratic and Left element, he is driving out everything that conduces to activity. That means peace ... By suppressing Jews ... he was ending struggle in Germany" (New York Times Magazine, May 6, 1934).

As astonishing at it may seem today, in 1938 many credited Hitler for his numerous efforts to secure lasting peace in Europe on the basis of equal rights of nations. After assuming power in 1933, he succeeded in quickly establishing friendly relations with Poland, Italy, Hungary, and several other European nations. Among his numerous initiatives to lessen tensions in Europe, the German leader offered detailed proposals for mutual reductions of armaments by the major powers.

In a 1940 essay, Stein wrote positively of the appointment of "collaborationist" Henri Philippe Petain as France's Chief of State, comparing him to George Washington. As late as 1941, she was urging the Atlantic Monthly to publish speeches by Marshal Petain, which she had translated into English. In spite of her background, Stein continued to live and write in France during the years of German occupation (1940-1944).

She also maintained a friendship with Bernard Fay, who headed France's national library, the Bibliotheque Nationale, during the Petain era. According to a new biography of Stein, Favored Strangers: Gertrude Stein and Her Family, by Linda Wagner-Martin, Fay and Stein often discussed "the Führer's qualities of greatness" in the years before the outbreak of war in 1939. Even after the war, when he was convicted as a collaborationist, Stein and her close companion Alice Toklas remained good friends with Fay and lobbied to free him from prison.

Conflicted Sense of Jewishness
Like many of this century's Jewish American intellectuals, Stein's relationship to her own Jewishness was complex and conflicted. She was sensitive to anti-Jewish sentiment, and sometimes expressed criticism of Hitler. In 1936 she wrote: "There is too much fathering going on just now and there is no doubt about it fathers are depressing. Everybody now-a-days is a father, there is father Mussolini and father Hitler and father Roosevelt and father Stalin and father Trotzky ..."

Estranged from the organized Jewish community, in part because of her eccentricity and lesbianism, she nevertheless retained an acute and proud sense of her Jewishness. According to Wagner-Martin, Stein once said, "all men of genius had Jewish blood," and even developed a theory that Abraham Lincoln was part Jewish.

During the first decade of this century, Stein became enamored of Austrian-Jewish psychologist and philosopher Otto Weininger, whose major work, Geschlecht und Charakter ("Sex and Character"), had tremendous influence on European thinking. Following its first publication in 1903, the book was quickly translated into various languages, and went through 30 editions. Weininger contrasted the masculine "Being" of Aryanism and Christianity with the feminine "non-Being" of Judaism. Jesus was the only Jew to overcome Judaism, he argued. Zionism, in Weininger's view, is the negation of Judaism, because it seeks to ennoble what cannot be ennobled. Whereas Judaism stands for the world dispersion of Jews, Zionism strives for their ingathering.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From The Journal of Historical Review, Sept-Oct. 1997 (Vol. 16, No. 5), pp. 22 ff.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3776  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Science, Culture, & Humanities / Mayo Proceedings psychiatrist on marijuana on: February 18, 2012, 11:02:06 AM
I received free a copy of the journal.  I glanced through a somewhat long article but have not spent the time reading it.

This physician supports the use of it for medical purposes.  I am not convinced we need another psychoactive drug out there.  OTOH it is out there anyway I guess.   Here he is giving a 10 minute chat about it:

http://www.scivee.tv/node/39225
3777  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Iran on: February 18, 2012, 08:59:18 AM
Drudge reporting "sources" in the WH now saying military action against Iran now "more" likely.

Give me a break.  If this is not now the tail wagging the dog!

After all this suddenly the WH has decided sanctions are not working.

Throw the Jews/Israel under the bus.  Now he needs them and their donations.   Suddenly the picture has changed.

I am all for helping Israel.  But at the expense of another four years of this guy....

Democrats will stop at nothing.
3778  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 17, 2012, 04:17:08 PM
"Why not polygamy/polyandry as well?"

GM,
Why stop there?  Why not just take it to the end game -
Why even have marriage altogether?

Just abolish it.  We have divorce at over 50%.  We have all these people fooling around.   We have children of single or unmarried parents all over the place.

Now gays are hoisting their agenda on the rest of us.

Perhaps we could tax individuals more and stop deductions, so the State would be happy to rid of marriage.

Just get rid of it.  It is nealy meaningless or going in that direction every day anyway.

We celebrate celebrities who have kids out of wedlock.  We celebrate gays having children.  We see everyone and their uncle so to speak having affairs (JFK with a teenager and running the WH like a Damn personal brothel)

I can go on.

Just get rid of the antiquated and fast becoming worthless institution.

So a few "chapels" on the Vegas strip will go out of business.
3779  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 17, 2012, 01:14:17 PM
Bigdog says,

"Moreover, in some areas of civil rights, such as handicapped, special accommodations are exactly what they are entitled to.  Ramps, tutors, Braille books, sound emitting cross walk signals?  Gay rights, like race and handicapped, are civil rights questions."

Specifically,

"special accommodations are exactly what they are entitled to"

Wow.   We are forced to accomodate to disabilities because of laws passed for compassionate reasons.  Yes all of us can become disabled at any time.   The problem is the word "entitlement".  There is NO end to extrapolation of using this word to endless areas of our society our culture.

The left has used this word in no small way to ever increase entitlements (and the government to enforce it - and the costs of others to pay for it) endlessly.

There is still no end in sight.  And there will not be.  Not unitl the entire world all 7 billion of us are exactly the same.
3780  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Napolitano on: February 17, 2012, 11:45:26 AM
Beck gone now Napolitano.   Ratings are down I guess.  Truthfully it seems like these shows will only appeal to certains groups and go only so far.   I say with disappointment that the strict conservative message is not going to get us the independents.  Just won't happen.  It is just too late, like it or not.

Proof in point, the country's "greatest generation" is now the country's biggest "entitlement generation" - by FAR.  Medicare and SS alone will bankrupt us while the politicians and the few who control the world economy continue their shell game.

In any case back to Freedom Watch:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/14/andrew-napolitano-fans-fox-email_n_1276468.html
3781  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The electoral process, vote fraud, SEIU/ACORN et al, corruption etc. on: February 17, 2012, 10:01:56 AM
I saw this last night.

Yes.   One has to wonder are there the result of incompetence, honest mistakes, or outright bribes or just political operatives doing stuff for their guy?

We will never know.

Romney has money.
3782  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Cognitive Dissonance of His Glibness on: February 16, 2012, 07:43:35 PM
"The Obama Farewell Speech of 2012" grin

I wouldn't put it past him to pull a "Cleveland" in 2016. shocked
3783  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Chinese buying lots of gold on: February 16, 2012, 07:39:30 PM
I don't know if this accounts for the price but China is buying large amounts.  Indians are buying too though I don't know if as much:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonchang/2012/01/29/why-are-the-chinese-buying-record-quantities-of-gold/
3784  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 16, 2012, 03:17:30 PM
For those of you who want to spend time reading 29 pages of this "study" which has a lot diatribing in it while in the same paper admits that actual research looking into the this is "scant" one can knock yourself out here:

http://www.psychology.org.au/Assets/Files/LGBT-Families-Lit-Review.pdf

So the authors blab and blab and blab at some points saying certain things are "well established" and later contradicting the whole thing with there is scant evidence.

It reminds me of "field" of  graphology wherein people claim to be ble to determine a person's personality from their handwriting.

A retired FBI documents examiner explained that he reviewed the books written on the subject and concluded there was no scientific continuity.  They all used different criteria and had different conclusions.


3785  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Gender, Gay, Lesbian on: February 16, 2012, 02:42:07 PM
"Actually nearly all the national medical groups agree (I wouldn't call them "progressive special interest groups")"

I am not sure who does these kinds of studies but it is more likely they are gay researchers with an agenda than conservatives trying to advance their conservative values.

That said I don't know whether it is harmful or not.

I am not sure why anyone would care enough to spend time and money unless gay and that would bias the study.

 
3786  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Ross is still alive on: February 15, 2012, 04:06:54 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot
3787  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science and Military Issues on: February 15, 2012, 04:04:47 PM
Agreed. 
3788  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science and Military Issues on: February 15, 2012, 03:51:28 PM
Assasination is quite acceptable so long as it makes a liberal politician look good.

Question, who lies more Nixon or Obama?
3789  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Military Science and Military Issues on: February 15, 2012, 03:42:26 PM
BG interesting fact book.

It is ironic we now have the most liberal President in history, making the most of speical operation forces overseas.

I remember not too long ago every liberal from Hollywood to MSM decrying out loud the CIA and special ops (IranContra) as
an evil segment of the Unites States overseas policy.

Sort of like Reagan's space based anti ballistic initiative as being ridiculed as Star Wars.  Now I can guarantee you Brock wishes he had antiballistic weapons that could shoot down nuclear warheads.  It would make Iran seem like less of a threat.
3790  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: February 15, 2012, 03:32:30 PM
Interesting post Crafty.

Readers know I have been disappointed to say the least over the years seeing so many fellow Jews supporting liberal political causes.

I had never heard of billionaire Adelson until I read about his several million donation to Newt.  I am glad the right appears to have an answer to Soros et al.  (and Jewish grin)

I am not sure why Shledon suddenly feels comfortable with Mitt when indeed he was not only weeks ago when he shelled out big money (not for him) for Newt.

FWIW (very little except to make conversation) I like Santorum.  I am not thrilled by Mitt.   Obviously many Republicans feel the same way.  Yet I still conclude Mitt is the stronger candidate for Obama.

Probably there is still time to give Santorum one more shot at why he is Presidential and should be the nominee.

Romney is like Campbell's chicken soup.  Basically adequate but just doesn't make my mouth water.  Hopefully with the right management and a real defined appealing campaign message this will be enough.

If not, to borrow Ross Perot's famous phrase, "we will be in [deeper] deep doodoo".

BTW, I wonder what happended to him.  Is he still alive?
 
3791  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: The Fed, Monetary Policy, Inflation, US Dollar & other currencies, & Gold/Silver on: February 14, 2012, 04:26:56 PM
"In fact, the federal government's total obligations today – including all future obligations – is more than $1 million per taxpayer. And that's if you assume all 112 million taxpayers really count. (They don't. Only about 50 million people in the U.S. pay any substantial amount of federal income taxes.)"

This answers the questions under the government spending thread about the burden on "real" taxpayers who are supporting not only themselves and family but several others.

Otherwise it sounds like the crises in Kally4rnia is the same as the Federal Government.

It is so bad or about ready to be so bad -

What is amazing man in the MSM look at people who write articles like this and laugh and smirk and belittle them. 

Well health insurance in NJ goes up 10% every year.

Prescription drug program under Bush cost more than SS?  I didn't know that.  And we have some pushing for Jeb Bush?
No thanks.  The first brought us Clinton the second brought us Brock.  Enuf said.


3792  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Government programs & regulations, spending, deficit, and budget process on: February 14, 2012, 03:34:04 PM
"we are looking at about $350,000 per taxpayer?"

Brock is not helping the middle class - he is killing us.

Yet hear him speak he is saving us.

Will/can the word get out?

Yet for the other 240 million what do they care?  Vote for the Brock!! They say.  Soak the "rich". tongue rolleyes cry sad angry
3793  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / preposterous on: February 14, 2012, 03:29:09 PM
"What business is it of the government what gender we are?"

What business is it of government what gender race ethnicity age or anything else?   A human being is a human being.

What business is it what "country" we are from?   Denmark, Kansas, New Zealand, Nigeria, Mongolia.   Obviously we are all one race - humankind.  (notice "man"kind is out!)

Look one world government with all of us exactly the same.

Don't forget it is the right of this same government to tell us what is politically correct to say AND think.

They can also tell us what we can and can't eat.  How many times we can flush the toilet.  What kind of light bulbs to use.  What kind of car to drive.   How much money we are allowed to make and certainly how much we can keep and must give them.

We are not allowed to display certain symbols on our lawn.  They can send a letter to our house telling us we are in the way and must move to make way for a busines that has given someone high up a donation or a piece of the real estate.

We cannot ask people who move here to speak our language but we must speak their language.

The government has NO business questioning what gender we are despite the laws of nature but they have all the business in the world to tell us and do to us all the above.

Make sense to you?  Not to me.

(It gets worse every day.  No end in sight.)
3794  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Those carrying the load - have broken backs on: February 14, 2012, 03:17:19 PM
(Unless you are Buffett Gates Soros and a couple of celebs----) 

Let's see 17 K per person 70K per family of four.  Yet if we remove the roughly 50% who pay no income tax or those who are retired on SS what is the real cost to today's workers (some pay a payroll tax I guess) and their working children.  Though since a large number of those under 20 - 25 yo are unemployed - bottom line - the toll on those carrying this load is FAR worse:   
     
 ****President Obama’s fourth budget has now been released, which allows for a relatively full accounting of deficit spending during his four years in office. The picture isn’t pretty, but it is revealing.

According to the White House’s own figures (see table S-1 here for 2011 to 2013, and table S-1 here for 2010), the actual or projected deficit tallies for the four years in which Obama has submitted budgets are as follows: $1.293 trillion in 2010, $1.300 trillion in 2011, $1.327 trillion in 2012, and $901 billion in 2013.  In addition, Obama is responsible for the estimated $200 billion (the Congressional Budget Office’s figure) that his economic “stimulus” added to the deficit in 2009.  Moreover, he shouldn’t get credit for the $149 billion in TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) repayments made in 2010 and 2011 to cover most of the $154 billion in bank loans that remained unpaid at the end of the 2009 fiscal year — loans that count against President Bush’s 2009 deficit tally.

Adding all of this up, deficit spending during Obama’s four years in the White House (based on his own figures) will be an estimated $5.170 trillion — or $5,170,000,000,000.00.

To help put that colossal sum of money into perspective, if you take our deficit spending under Obama and divide it evenly among the roughly 300 million American citizens, that works out to just over $17,000 per person — or about $70,000 for a family of four.***
3795  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Entitlements and how to go after them on: February 14, 2012, 12:36:48 PM
"Republican lack of integrity"

I really don't know Crafty.  I think the Repubs have been running a defensive retreating strategy for years.  They are really afraid of losing segments of the voters if they stand on principle too much.  So they try to compromise which backfires and on and on.

It is nearly impossible to compete with a party that steals from producers and bribes more and more voters.

Now we have the medicare soc sec bunch who are more inclined to be on the right but for their own pockets are suddenly another big entitlement group that will protect its interests over the good of the country.  Like all of us I guess or hate to say.

"no significance whether or not their destruction of the economy is intentional"

It may be more incompetence.  Does Paul Krugman continue to shove his absurd views on us because he really believes his way is best or that if it doesn't work - well hell F the US anyway and start over?  I am not sure about this.

As we all here know the liberal movement is with the end game of the US is nothing more then a piece of land in a world ruled by liberals "governmentalists".


They don't like America they want to abolish its dominance or use it only to spread around the world.  So if this country fold as we know it - maybe not so bad.

(Of course until they personally would suffer but that is another story.)

3796  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: 2012 Presidential on: February 14, 2012, 11:01:54 AM
I like Morris but and have looked forward to his insights.  Unfortunately, I am learning he is just preaching to the Right's choir.
I don't think he has any real insight to independents who seem to bend with the wind.

Brock's team knows this.

That is why they are unleashing this total propaganda war.

Independents will believe whatever they hear @ the moment.

They think the economy is doing better - right or wrong - they vote for Brock.

The market goes up they vote for Brock.

I know, the Repubs are too busy fighting each other and will also get their media machine rolling once we get the nominee.




3797  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / correction on: February 14, 2012, 10:55:23 AM
"They just get it, care, understand, see it or whatever, they only care about their pocketbook."

Tehy just DON'T get it, etc.

3798  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Re: Entitlements and how to go after them on: February 14, 2012, 10:54:07 AM
GM,

I am not as optimistic as you.

Just the single fact that I keep hearing that Republicans should be able to "hold on" to the House of reps is alone enough to dishearten me.

To think we have this gigantic liberal in the WH and we are facing this truly radical transformation of America and yet Republicans are struggling to hold onto gains....

The fact the Brock has an approval of even 40-50% also tells me it is almost too late.

It appears many in this country are just fine with a more socialist state.

The 15 - 20% or whatever the number is in the middle - who always decide the elections on a national level
it is obvious by now they are not swayed or concerned about ideology one way or the other.  They just get it, care, understand, see it or whatever, they only care about their pocketbook.

That is it.  It has to be that.   Otherwise Brock's approval would be 40% with disapproval of 60%.   We wouldn't even be thinking the House could go back to Dems or lose Repub seats.  It would be a landslide.

Or let me ask you.  Why is Brock still at 45-50% approval?
3799  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Crashing the system may be the goal on: February 14, 2012, 09:57:50 AM
"Until it all crashes."

That may actually be the GOAL.

Someone on talk radio was questioning the motive of Brockster NOT addressing the entitlements.

Whether it be he is just waiting to get re-elected?

And he is playing chicken and letting the Repubs make the first step into the quandry and then will mow down all their proposals with demogauguery?

Or is he really the manchurain liberal who does want the system to collapse so it can be rebuilt more like a communist or fascist state with the end goal being one world government that is all controlling or all knowing.

The answer to this question is unknown but I think it very reasonable to suspect it actually is that he would be ok if the system collapse as long as he and his liberal friends can progress to even bigger new liberal world orders.

Some fools would call this crazy, far fetched, propaganda.

There is actually a LOT of evidence this IS real to support this theory.  Indeed many of the big libs today are saying as much.

The foreign policy proposals calling for the US to forever be bound by the UN is just one example.

The idea tha offshore drilling should be taxed to  give to poor countries - now I should work to pay off the benefits to those in the  US  who are bribed to vote AND  I should do the same for the entire world?

If this does  not shine a light on what the liberals are doing to us - I don't know what will wake up America.
3800  Politics, Religion, Science, Culture and Humanities / Politics & Religion / Yes and to take it a little further on: February 13, 2012, 02:15:58 PM
Agree with the arguments posted.  Also the gay infitada has a powerful ally in the MSM.  Since much of the opposition to legalizing marriage and with it the "normalization" of homosexuality comes for religion and of course religious groups have been aligned to a large extent with the Republican party the gays have become probably almost as strongly identified with the Crat party as Blacks and 75% of Jews.

So it is quite natural they have big support in the MSM notwithstanding much prominence in the entertainment industry and now with cable news - Maddow, Cooper, etc.

In a way I find my rights as an American citizen to speak out against overwhelming immigration abuse, and to speak out as a taxpayer my resentment that I be taxed up the behind while 50% pay no federal income tax, and the very rich have numerous loopholes, as very much the same type of muzzling of ALL opposition to this progressive wave that is overwhelmiing America.
Pages: 1 ... 74 75 [76] 77 78 ... 128
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!