Open forum, July 30 - August 5

Published:

 

The forums are moderated by Columbian staff and our community guidelines and terms of service still apply. To participate, login with your Columbian.com ID or register for an account at Columbian.com.

Columbian staff members create new forum threads. Don't see a forum topic here that fits your comments? Email Web Edtor John Hill -- john.hill@columbian.com.


640 comments

Comments

*I will gladly admit that I have found no study that gives a figure to the number of people that are abusing the public assistance system.* danabwoodley — July 19, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.

So, basically, just an attempt at a red herring via a rw talking point. Good to know.....

*And on the same topic, next question. Why is it a bad thing to require drug testing in order to recieve assistance? danabwoodley — July 19, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.*

And yet another attempt....

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 6:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 18, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.

Let us know when you've found what you consider the science that supports your claims.
All we've seen so far is you denying that the well established science is valid.

With no alternative explanation that fits to the current observations.

Or the observations for the past 100+ years.

From scientists working in many fields.

From observations from every continent on Earth.

From scientists from virtually every continent.

From scientists living under a range of governments.

Science agreed to by every major scientific organization.

And all you bring is a denial of that science.

Still waiting....

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 6:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 6:39 a.m.

I don't know what ever gave you the idea that you are activities directer here in the basement. I have no desire to revisit your anti-science views.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 6:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


And on the same topic, next question. Why is it a bad thing to require drug testing in order to recieve assistance? danabwoodley — July 19, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.

Thanks, basil. I missed this post.

Because it's a 4th amendment violation?
Because you can't correlate a relationship between drug use and needing assistance?
Because the drug most commonly found in testing is cannabis? (A crack head can be clean in three days. A casual cannabis user requires a much longer period to clear the metabolites.)
Because drug testing is merely a weapon used by those that propagate the war on drugs?

None of those responses work for ya? Okay, how 'bout this, then?http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

Dana, are you aware that when the Harrison Act was passed in 1914 it was estimated 1.3% of the population had a "drug problem." Do you have any idea what the number is today? Okay, I'll tell ya. 1.3%.

http://capndrift.wordpress.com/

Drift — July 30, 2012 at 7:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — July 30, 2012 at 7:25 a.m.

You forgot to mention the utter failure the policy was when enacted in Florida, It cost more to give the tests than the savings in welfare benefits.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 7:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The pentagon doesn't want $3B worth of work done on some tanks. However, our stupid congress, thanks to lobbyists for General Dynamics, has convinced the members of 4 committees to apropriate the money anyway. And those silly congressmen tell us they want to reduce federal spending? Yea, right.

http://openchannel.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/07/28/12991946-the-m1-abrams-the-army-tank-that-could-not-be-stopped?lite

mrd — July 30, 2012 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Yeah, I did fro. That would be the link under, "Okay, how 'bout this, then?" The link is a NY Times article on the subject.

Drift — July 30, 2012 at 8:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — July 30, 2012 at 8:20 a.m.

Yes, you did, sorry.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 8:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


That's cool, fro. I figured you 'prolly realized it after your post.

So it's going to be a Dog Day Afternoon? Are you Sirius? Crazy, man! (I crack me up! Heh!)

Drift — July 30, 2012 at 8:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*I have no desire to revisit your anti-science views.*
frobert — July 30, 2012 at 6:55 a.m.

Basically, you are attempting to claim that by repeating Galileo's Leaning Tower of Pisa experiment you'll get proof Aristotle was right.

Sorry to see in the last two weeks you really couldn't bring any evidence that supports your claims.

Which makes it rather "..your anti-science views", not mine....

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 8:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*... but until we elect a Ron Paul or Gary Johnson as president that isn't going to happen.*

frobert — July 23, 2012 at 11:56 p.m.

Any evidence that either would actually be able to actualize any libertarian legislation?

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 8:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 8:50 a.m.

Drug scheduling is decided by the executive branch, no legislation is needed.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 9:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Can be changed. Not exactly "is decided".

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2012/01/03/a-president-alone-can-end-the-federal-drug-war/

But the main point stands; you won't be able to bring evidence that your choices have been effective in bringing their political philosophy to a substantive discussion or develop a plan that would put most any of it into action.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 9:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 9:14 a.m.

The administrative branch can add, change or eliminate altogether, that qualifies as "is decided" by any standard. That was the only point of the post you questioned.

Legislative action is the responsibility of the Congress, executive action is the responsibility of the President. Why should I provide evidence of what is clearly laid out in the Constitution? Let the Congress do their job, it is not the job of the President to enact laws, just to veto those they feel are inappropriate. Through their executive power, a Libertarian president could accomplish great things, change or eliminate drug scheduling, undo all previous President's attacks on civil liberties, nominate Supreme Court Justices that actually believe in the Constitution.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 9:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I forgot to mention ending the wars and bring our troops home.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 9:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Crazy-

Ruff Ruff< woof Woof, what kinda dog am I... Gotta love your comment though..Pretty accurate and no need to cite sources unless we want to cut and paste from the past several years.

vanwadreamer — July 30, 2012 at 9:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"is" is not equal to "can".

Just as your use of "just" is not accurate....

As well as attempting to sidestep the question of any evidence of capability by your using "could" in place of showing 'what they have done'....

And kinda like your inability to demonstrate any science that supports your claims.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 9:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.

"what they have done"

We have never had a Libertarian President so how can I give examples of what they "have done"? Your arguments are getting more and more convoluted.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 9:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


from the WSJ

**Federal Spending Cutbacks Slow Recovery
Sharp Drop in Military, Stimulus Spending Take a Toll on Economic Rebound**

Falling military spending and the end of federal stimulus programs are further slowing the already weak U.S. economic recovery.

In recent weeks, policy debate in Washington has turned to the looming "fiscal cliff," billions of dollars in spending cuts and tax increases set to take effect at the start of the new year. The Congressional Budget Office, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and others have warned that the cuts would tip the U.S. into recession early next year, and some economists have argued that the uncertainty generated by the debate could act as a drag on the economy long before

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444840104577553551718500764.html

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 9:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 9:48 a.m.

'"is" is not equal to "can".'

I will have to answer that with a Bill Clinton quote

"That depends on what your definition of is is"

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*so how can I give examples of what they "have done"? Your arguments are getting more and more convoluted.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 9:54 a.m

Your examples (Ron and Gary) are / have been in politics. They have a history.

Show us examples of previous effectiveness in that political arena that would / should / could /may possibly point to either of them being effective in moving legislation forward or furthering their political agenda.

This

"1995
Governor Johnson set state and national records by vetoing 200 bills out of the 424 that were passed by the Legislature"

doesen't

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10 a.m.

The dictionary is big. There is a reason we use all those words. And poor word choice muddies the transmission of ideas.

Or purposefully obfuscates....

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


doesn't.....

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:04 a.m.

How many bills the the democrats get through the congress before Jackson? How many bills did the Republicans pass before Lincoln? Your argument is utter nonsense.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift,

Thanks for the link to the discussion on CannaCare (Drift — July 24, 2012 at 6:24 a.m. )

It's going to take some reading to get informed enough to make a good voting choice.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:04 a.m

You need to read the Constitution, the President does not pass legislation, nor do they propose it. You seem to have a real problem with separation of powers.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:12 a.m.

??????

Your attempt at a false equivalency doesn't support your claim of how RP or GJ are magically going to change things if , and only if, they were elected president.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*....the President does not pass legislation, nor do they propose it. You seem to have a real problem with separation of powers.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.

I'm really not able to follow how what you are claiming about GJ or RP's magical powers to change things if, and only if, they were elected President.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:18 a.m.

My answer, that they can change drug scheduling by executive order is very clear and supported by your link. You were wrong when you questioned my post from last week, just admit it and move on. Trying to cloud the issue because you can't accept that you made a mistake does not do anything to bolster your credibility.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*....the President does not pass legislation, ..."*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.

Really?

*"...nor do they propose it.* "

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.

Really?

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*You were wrong when you questioned my post from last week,*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.

Ipse dixit

*just admit it and move on.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.

Bluster rather than substance. Nothing new there.

*Trying to cloud the issue because you can't accept that you made a mistake does not do anything to bolster your credibility.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:22 a.m.

When your claims, such as they are, are muddied by unclear writing, one has to get clarification that what you said is what you thought you said.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I should have said "introduce" anyone can propose.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:28 a.m.

My claim was that to end marijuana prohibition, we needed to elect a Libertarian president. You countered with the common fallacy that they needed to pass legislation to do that. I clarified that legislative action was not needed, only executive order.

This argument is over you have lost, either because you did not understand the drug scheduling process or because you misunderstood my original post. I stand by my original post, I have supported my opinion with sound logic and you still refuse to accept it.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.

Slightly more accurate; but the weight of the office puts that 'proposal' in a different light

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/thepresidentandcabinet/a/preslegpower.htm

Your argument was inaccurate because of the implication that only the President could change the drug schedule, that your candidates would magically force changes, and incorrect citation of the processes of how our government works.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*My claim was that to end marijuana prohibition, we needed to elect a Libertarian president. You countered with the common fallacy that they needed to pass legislation to do that.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:36 a.m.

Your attempt to claim that RP or GJ will /can /could magically change a whole body of legislation via an executive order is faulty due to the process that is established in the Constitution for Congress's further action.

And by the fact that you can't bring any evidence that shows either of candidates have a history of effectiveness in bringing actualization of their political philosophy forward.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.

My argument was not inaccurate, I stated that it wasn't going to happen until we had a Libertarian President, not that it could not by law. Congress could remove marijuana from the drug schedule, many bills to do so have been introduced, I don't believe any of them have made it to a vote.

Any President could remove marijuana from the drug schedule, this is a fact, I did not incorrectly cite the process. Now you are just grasping at straws, trying to prove yourself right, have some dignity, just admit you were mistaken.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 30, 2012 at 10:50 a.m.

Well, I can see why you don't want to pursue your claims about how climate science is anti-science....

We have legislation on the books in several states that work toward ending the prohibition on marijuana - both as a recreational drug and for its use as medicine.

While it would be nice if it were accomplished today or tomorrow, the fact of the matter is that progress is being made now.

We don't need to elect someone who you claim will magically accomplish the same thing. And to rub a bit of salt into that fallacy, there is the pesky issue that neither of your choices have any history of being politically effective at anything similar.

And to further note, even if RP or GJ did do that (get elected and magically do what you claim they will, there is that pesky issue of what Congress could do afterward. And that would apply - for the sake of argument - if Obama or Romney did the same thing you claim only RP/GJ would do.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 11:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


#**Terrifying Peace: Living Within a Permanent War Economy**
Monday, 30 July 2012 00:00
By Kingsley Dennis, Truthout | News Analysis

The opening years of the 21st century have been characterized by new levels of security and safety fears that have plunged the world into a post-millennium state of in-security. These insecurities have been heightened by the deliberate breakdown of old and familiar dualities, such as friend vs. foe, so that the "enemy" has now been shifted from someplace outside of society to dwell as the potential enemy within society. What this means is that all civilians can effectively be categorized as "potential terrorists." Over recent years, the US government especially has been using "function-creep" to bring into law policies which ever increasingly encroach upon the basic freedoms of civilians. What is occurring is a seeping militarization of the social sphere. This socio-militarization now claims a legal right - and "duty" - to arrest and detain any civilian on the pretense of suspicion only. This has been most recently highlighted by President Obama's signing of the 2012 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) whose Section 1021 sanctions the military detention of American citizens without charge. One wonders here how many nails it takes to put the coffin lid on the American Constitution. The NDAA states that suspects can be held without trial "until the end of hostilities." However, when such "hostilities" are now part of a permanent war economy, such definitive "end of" seems to be an obscured issue. Further, it allows the militarized state to bring in troops (such as the National Guard) and local police forces, combined with extensive authorized surveillance, to "secure" the social sphere. With no defined enemy and no defined timeline, the notion of peacetime becomes meshed with socio-militarization to produce a state of terrifying peace.
Much of the world has been plunged into a state of mental and emotional warfare; the heightened activities of terrifying peace now characterize the social construction of the global war on terror. This might be more appropriately named a "war in terror," as it perpetrates a rising tension of fear, anger and also bloodthirsty hatred. As Howard Zinn rightly noted, "How can you have a war on terrorism when war itself is terrorism?"

http://truth-out.org/news/item/10384-terrifying-peace-living-within-a-permanent-war-economy

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 11:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 11:25 a.m.

An executive order rescheduling marijuana is not "magic" it is written into the drug scheduling act. I find it hard to believe that the current Congress could come to enough of a consensus on marijuana to outlaw it. Yes Obama or Romney could accomplish the same thing, but they are both prohibitionists and both have shown blatant disregard for the wishes of the majority.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 11:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Basil, my point in referring to the CannaCare site was twofold. One, to give example of the controversy surrounding I-502. The other, to give an example of how a "vocal activist" can sway opinion. The former I understand, the latter near disgusts me.

In the discussion one CannaCare member actually states they won't offer an opinion until they know that of the site owner. Disgust? Perhaps "frighten" would have been a better descriptive.

Fro, I believe the people of this nation will eventually be the catalyst for cannabis reform. Over 50% are currently in favor of legalization for recreational use. 80% for medicinal.

Folks have seen both the curative and palliative efficacy of phytocannabinoids. Some have even taken the time to educate themselves (that wouldn't include the City Council) on the subject.

And then there's the neighbor whom learns their's is quite succesful AND indulges from time to time. Reefer madness was not a documentary...

Drift — July 30, 2012 at 11:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 11:27 a.m.

Yet you insist that the only viable anti war pro civil liberties candidate would ruin this country. I don't know which is worse liberal or conservative hypocrisy.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 11:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — July 30, 2012 at 11:39 a.m.

What is scary is, all it takes is the stroke of the Presidents pen to reschedule cannabis, yet neither "states rights" republican nor "choice loving" democrat will.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 11:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Yet you insist that the only viable anti war pro civil liberties candidate would ruin this country.* ....
frobert — July 30, 2012 at 11:42 a.m.

You will, of course, point to any evidence that you have that supports that assertion....

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 12:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*An executive order rescheduling marijuana is not "magic" it is written into the drug scheduling act.*
frobert — July 30, 2012 at 11:37 a.m.

The "magic" is your insistence that all it would take is RP/GJ doing that executive order.

And you are slightly wrong about exec order and "written into the drug scheduling act" since it doesn't need to be in the " drug scheduling act". Actually, that was a point you were making earlier..... EO by fiat.

*I find it hard to believe that the current Congress could come to enough of a consensus on marijuana to outlaw it.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 11:37 a.m.

You mean to overturn the Exec. Order?

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 12:12 p.m.

Evidence of what? Everyone on this forum has seen your anti Ron Paul posts. I could show polls showing that Paul could defeat Obama, making him viable. I could link Paul's voting record showing that he consistently votes against war and for personal liberties. I don't see the reasoning of posting proof if these facts are not in question. You have to question a fact if you are asking for proof. Just what evidence are you asking for?

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 12:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — July 30, 2012 at 11:39 a.m.

Yes, that person does rather use his bully pulpit. And it seems, some strong arm tactics. If his case were strong, he could be less ipse dixit and more 'here's where it says what I say it says'.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 12:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 12:21 p.m.

"You mean to overturn the Exec. Order?"

Congress does not have the authority to overturn an executive order, they would have to pass a law outlawing marijuana.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 12:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift

I apologize for continuing to use the term "marijuana" but that is how the federal law is written, I see some states, ours included have changed their nomenclature.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 12:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Everyone on this forum has seen your anti Ron Paul posts.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.

Ummm, any discussion around RP usually is focused on your inability to support your claims about how the media misrepresents you claims about delegate count.

*I could show polls showing that Paul could defeat Obama, making him viable.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.

If you could, you should.

*I could link Paul's voting record showing that he consistently votes against war and for personal liberties.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.

Yet, in all his years in office, what has he introduced? What has he co-sponsored? Evidence of any leadership capability?

Evidence of recanting statements beyond his claims someone else wrote them?

*I don't see the reasoning of posting proof if these facts are not in question. You have to question a fact if you are asking for proof. Just what evidence are you asking for?*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 12:22 p.m.

Something, anything that would justify you/libertarians attempts to put RP/Libertarian philosophy in a messianic light.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 12:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 30, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.

yup, Is that what you meant by

*I find it hard to believe that the current Congress could come to enough of a consensus on marijuana to outlaw it.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 11:37 a.m.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 12:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 12:34 p.m

I meant what I said, you are the one who used the "overturn an executive order" fallacy.

It would take a 2/3 majority to override a veto and pass a federal law outlawing marijuana, given the current public opinion on the matter I don't believe the House could manage that.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


You gotta laugh sometimes on the forum. It's a dog EAT dog world out there and now...we're a buncha hounds, terriers, working class breeds...

Let's face it! We're a bunch of classics here on the forum.

Nice one, Crazytrain.

Ever notice how some on here demand an immediate response from others...even giving a time limit...and wait and wait and wait...never to get the exact response they intended??? I can just picture their little rounded cheeks, their faces turning all blue and eyes popping out while tapping their foot on the ground beneath their chair as they hold their breath for the response, only to let it all out and gasp for that much needed air...a soliloquy of sorts through multiple posts of insults and anger built up...ready to blow.

Yep! The forum is definitely unique!

goldenoldie — July 30, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


What the....???

Matt Wastradowski, what the heck is with this Captcha garbage today??? Some of the word combos are getting rather dicey in word content...no joke.

Sheesh!

goldenoldie — July 30, 2012 at 1:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 30, 2012 at 12:42 p.m.

Overturn is fairly common language for Congress's procedure to - ahem - overturn an executive order.

"Executive orders can be **overturned** by either of the other two branches: the Supreme Court can do so through a case that is brought in front of them and Congress can do so by passing legislation that would conflict with the order or by refusing to approve funding to enforce it. "

http://www.votetocracy.com/blog/detail/understanding-executive-orders-and-the-powers-they-grant.html

You are attempting to birdwalk the argument rather than bring anything substantive. Not new, we can see it in your efforts to not address many of your claims.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 1:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 1:07 p.m.

Like I said, congress would have to pass a law outlawing marijuana. You are just trying to convolute the argument.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 1:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


#**Let's Just Say It: The Republicans AND the Media Are the Problem**
Eric Alterman

Many mysteries plague us regarding the press coverage of the Obama era, but one strikes me as central to our political predicament. Why, after everyone else has given it up, do members of the mainstream media persist in helping to hide—and therefore empower—the radicalization of the Republican Party?

The GOP strategy was clear from the start. Republicans, circa 2009, were no longer interested in bipartisan solutions to America’s problems. As then–Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell told National Journal, “The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president.” Senator Jim DeMint famously promised healthcare reform could be used to “break” Obama from day one. And that was before the Tea Party even existed.

Part of the problem, for far too long, was that President Obama collaborated in the charade. He was so invested in the notion that both sides could just get along and legislate together that he couldn’t part with the illusion he had helped to create. His communitarian rhetoric, together with his compromise-in-advance legislative strategy, was always oriented toward inclusiveness, consensus-building and, ultimately, political passivity. As a result, Obama allowed the Republicans to stymie his ability to act on behalf of most of his agenda, beginning with the underfunded stimulus and carrying through with virtually every single initiative he undertook throughout the first two years of his term.

The net effect of this legislatively was that, rather than reversing the right-wing policies of the Bush administration, Obama has, despite his significant accomplishments, largely continued them. He has issued fewer new regulations than Bush did at the same point in his term. He has lowered taxes, both on the rich and the rest of us, and his healthcare, economic and environmental initiatives were largely based on Republican proposals. And his foreign policy is, in many respects, unchanged from Bush’s. So when it came time to defend his record in 2010, he found only demoralized troops, and the Democrats suffered a historic rout as a result.

http://www.thenation.com/article/169084/lets-just-say-it-republicans-and-media-are-problem

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 1:13 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Use the words you want, fro. Myself, I don't normally use "marijuana" 'cuz I think the word helped us get where we are today with prohibition. In the original 1937 tax act industrial hemp was labeled as marihuana.

BTW, are you aware portions of the Tax Act were overturned by the SCOTUS in '69? Congress repealed the Act in 1970 passing the Controlled Substance Act in its stead.

See, in order to grow "marihuana" (spelled h e m p) one had to get a tax stamp. In order to get a tax stamp one would need to present a sample of the product. Kind of a catch-22, eh?

The case was Leary v. the U.S. Yeah, *that* Leary.

Drift — July 30, 2012 at 1:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — July 30, 2012 at 1:26 p.m.

I am aware how the law was passed and how it was overturned and the improper name. Additionally when the liberal block of the court joined by Kennedy and Scalia upheld the federal ban on it. Conservatives Rehnquist , O'Connor and Thomas felt it was an overstep of federal authority. Funny how liberals would have you believe that it was the conservatives that supported this law.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The Obama administration looking out for civil liberties?

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505245_162-57482402/wenatchee-area-marijuana-shops-close-due-to-letter/

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 2:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Interesting stuff. What are the odds?

**Obama related to America's first slave**

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/07/obama-related-to-first-american-slave/1?csp=34news#.UBb46RwU7Do

nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal



This out of touch elitist seems to piss off anyone and everyone he comes in contact with.

**Romney angers Palestinians with pro-Israel comment**

JERUSALEM (AP) — Mitt Romney's campaign stop in Israel left behind furious Palestinians charging that the Republican presidential candidate hasn't fully grasped the complexities of one of the world's most intractable conflicts.

http://www.chron.com/news/article/Romney-angers-Palestinians-with-pro-Israel-comment-3747264.php

nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 2:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Dispensaries are not legal in this state - I don't care what they're doing up in Seattle. State law aside: The "letter" is old news. It's merely one of the tactics the feds are using to squash cannabis.

Banks that deal with "illicit business'" are being threatened. Illicit business', though they may attempt to abide by law, are not allowed the tax write offs legal business' are. Etc., etc...

I've said it time and again. We are residing in the United Corporations of America. Cannabis; recreational, medicinal, and industrial poses one heck of a threat to the bottom line of many large companies.

Rather than diversify, the corps are freaking. GW Pharmaceuiticals has tons of money tied up in their product Sativex. Sativex is currently in phase three trials with the FDA for treating the symptoms of MS. If I had the money to purchase a mass spectrometer I could make the stuff in my kitchen.

The industries that produce products for the cotton industry (pesticide, defoliants, etc.) would take a big hit with industrial hemp legalization.

The alcohol industry does NOT want to see the legalization of recreational cannabis.

The list goes on and on and...

The big corps are freaking. The dumb thing is, they *must* know the shift is right around the corner. Perhaps they're trying to stall until they can get all of the patents, controls, and whatever in place?

And for some odd, twisted reason I'm encouraged by the freak. To me, it means things really are going to change. No matter how loud corporate America screams, yells, and stamps their feet.

Drift — July 30, 2012 at 2:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Somebody was talking about physicists supporting denier tropes.

Richard Muller is a professor of physics at the University of California .....

#**The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic**
By RICHARD A. MULLER

CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.

My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.

These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming. In its 2007 report, the I.P.C.C. concluded only that most of the warming of the prior 50 years could be attributed to humans. It was possible, according to the I.P.C.C. consensus statement, that the warming before 1956 could be because of changes in solar activity, and that even a substantial part of the more recent warming could be natural.

Our Berkeley Earth approach used sophisticated statistical methods developed largely by our lead scientist, Robert Rohde, which allowed us to determine earth land temperature much further back in time. We carefully studied issues raised by skeptics:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/the-conversion-of-a-climate-change-skeptic.html

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 3:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 3:08 p.m.

First of all Muller was never a skeptic,read his interview prior to this study.
http://grist.org/article/lets-get-physical/

The conclusion was also rejected for peer review.

http://blogs.nature.com/news/2012/07/amid-criticism-berkeley-earth-extends-record-upholds-findings.html

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 3:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I shouldn't have said "conclusion" I should have said "key elements"

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 3:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"James Lovelock, the maverick scientist who became a guru to the environmental movement with his “Gaia” theory of the Earth as a single organism, has admitted to being “alarmist” about climate change and says other environmental commentators, such as Al Gore, were too."

http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I guess you didn't really read the blog you linked to, maybe it was a link forwarded for denier sycophants:

"“JGR has a method of **technically rejecting a journal while encouraging the authors to revise the paper** and re-submit. Apparently they do this to give the authors more time to make changes ..."

And, if you remember, Dr. Muller discussed his level of skeptism at length in several interviews and postings; so you link to a single example is, at best, disingenuous.

For example, the first line of the post I linked to , "CALL me a converted skeptic."

Also see:

"An issue, though, that isn't really settled yet is how much of that is due to humans?"

" I'm worried about the decline."

" So carbon dioxide is a result of climate change not a driver of climate change in that period. You can even see this in the delay because when it warms up it takes 800 years before the carbon dioxide comes back out. There's a slight delay that Al Gore never talks about. That old linkage is simply junk science."

"80 percent or 90 percent of what's in Inconvenient Truth is wrong or exaggerated or cherry picked."

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 30, 2012 at 3:55 p.m.

Lovelock has (or had) some 'followers', but is hardly an exemplar for serious climate science researchers.

If you have something that addresses the following, we are still waiting....

frobert — July 18, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.

Let us know when you've found what you consider the science that supports your claims. All we've seen so far is you denying that the well established science is valid.

With no alternative explanation that fits to the current observations.

Or the observations for the past 100+ years.

From scientists working in many fields.

From observations from every continent on Earth.

From scientists from virtually every continent.

From scientists living under a range of governments.

Science agreed to by every major scientific organization.

And all you bring is a denial of that science.

Still waiting....

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 3:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


In reference to "key elements", perhaps you could explain:

"None of the reviews have indicated any mistakes in the papers; they have instead been primarily suggestions for additions, further citations of the literature"

from your cite

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 4 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 3:55 p.m.

You seem to have failed to read the comments from other scientists concerning his methodology and his habit of putting publicity ahead of science. His leaving out known factors like radiation has also gotten him harsh criticism.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 4 p.m. ( | suggest removal


A known alarmist and publicity hound, claims to be a skeptic so he can release conclusion of an un-reviewed study and get the fanfare. This is not news or even relevant to the global warming debate.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 3:57 p.m.

Gotta love the alarmist, suppress science and refuse to consider the 1100 peer reviewed papers that don't agree with their point of view and then insist that the minority of scientists that agree with their point of view are the only ones that count.

It's not surprising that a recent Yale study has shown that skeptics in general are more scientifically literate than alarmists.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 4:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


" 1100 peer reviewed papers"

Got a link?

Hopefully it isn't the fake list from that computer programmer; the one where people have been pointing out for a couple of years that many aren't in peer reviewed journals or aren't research papers.

Or where he misquoted the findings.

Really, I hope you have something better.....

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"minority of scientists"

Tell us how you figure that.

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 4:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*A known alarmist and publicity hound, claims to be a skeptic*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 4:07 p.m.

Tell us how you know he fits your definition of "alarmist". You could support that with any quotes you can find.

In fact, it would be interesting to see your definition of "alarmist".

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


His leaving out known factors like radiation has also gotten him harsh criticism.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 4 p.m.

Source?

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 4:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Prof Judith Curry, who chairs the Department of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at America’s prestigious Georgia Institute of Technology, said that Prof Muller’s claim that he has proven global warming sceptics wrong was also a ‘huge mistake’, with no scientific basis.
Prof Curry is a distinguished climate researcher with more than 30 years experience and the second named co-author of the BEST project’s four research papers."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2055191/Scientists-said-climate-change-sceptics-proved-wrong-accused-hiding-truth-colleague.html#ixzz229T7GmfJ

http://thegwpf.org/the-observatory/4230-best-confirms-global-temperature-standstill.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2011/10/berkeley-earthquake-called-off/

The only thing the Muller study proves is that the Koch foundation does not dictate the outcome of science funded by them.

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Might want to vet Curry before using her thinking as an appropriate source to prove your point.

And maybe you could explain why you think the Real Climate post supports any of your contentions; it shows that he was in the skeptic camp: "Muller says that “the biggest surprise was that the new results agreed so closely with the warming values published previously by other teams in the US and the UK.”".

mr_basil_seal — July 30, 2012 at 4:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawkeye and Crazytrain...hopefully that's underwear with the logo all over it and not the treats. I'd think Milkbone would chafe.

Hey, speaking of Milkbone...maybe we could toss a couple to the dueling Chihuahuas on the forum today.

goldenoldie — July 30, 2012 at 5:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


ACLU's report card on presidential candidates.

http://www.aclulibertywatch.org/ALWCandidateReportCard.pdf

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 5:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Goldie,

Tsk tsk

roger — July 30, 2012 at 7 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_sea @ 3:08- Rachel Maddow interviewed Muller on her show tonight. Really good. I'll try and post it when it becomes available.

frobert- @ 3:37- *First of all Muller was never a skeptic,read his interview prior to this study.*

How "on earth" could you make this statement?

---

It's nice to have an open forum to debate issues. No need for anyone to troll otherwise.

Good to see you post again mr_basil_seal. Some on the right seem to get a little antsy when facts/sources are utilized. Opinion backed by facts tend to bring clarity to those often blurred lines.

---

Anyone taking in the Olympics? Pretty exciting stuff! Go USA!!!

nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 8:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Pathetic! More proof there is much "waste" to be trimmed at the Pentagon. It's takes balls to be on the front lines of Defense. Lose em' & and the Pentagon gives the finger.

**Afghanistan Veterans With Genital Wounds Receive Little Help From Pentagon**

WASHINGTON -- For the growing number of soldiers and Marines whose genitals are damaged or destroyed by blasts from improvised explosive devices while in combat, the Pentagon has decided it will not provide some critical reproductive health benefits.

To put it bluntly, if you are sent to war and an IED blast blows off your testicles, the U.S. government will not pay for your wife to have in vitro fertilization or artificial insemination using donated sperm.

The new policy, quietly adopted without announcement by the Defense Department, responds to the growing demands of the more than 1,800 veterans with genital wounds that the government that sent them to war now help them return to normal life, including raising a family.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/30/afghanistan-veterans-genital-wounds_n_1719896.html

nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 8:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


So much much for the solid, civiliized, minimal arguments coversation we were having here. Basil has returned. I would still be intereseted in your ability to give your own view and not spend your time attacking others.

danabwoodley — July 30, 2012 at 9:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Why is basil taking heat? From what I can tell all the individual is doing is asking that posters separate opinion from fact.

I can write, "The cannabis laws are bunk," and voice that as opinion. Fine, an opinion is just that. But if I write, "The cannabis laws are bunk," and frame that as some sort of fact then I darn well better be able to present solid evidence on why it is factual.

I see nothing whatsoever wrong with that.

Heck, I agree with it.

Drift — July 30, 2012 at 9:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Yes, but Basil doesn't discriminate. If one posts something as an opinion, he will attack for facts, or dissect the post to make the person out to be a fool.
He also makes no attempt to give his own opinion, so we don't even know where he stands. He is nothing more than an antagonist trying to get ones blood boiling. Once he achieves that he can point out an imature childish reaction that would discredit anything the poster has to say.

danabwoodley — July 30, 2012 at 10:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*Yes, but Basil doesn't discriminate.*

You perceive this to be a negative? Please explain.

*If one posts something as an opinion, he will attack for facts,*

Requesting factual data is attacking? Remember the boy who cried wolf...

*or dissect the post to make the person out to be a fool.*

Is this perception based on your personal experience?

*He also makes no attempt to give his own opinion*

Factually incorrect.

*so we don't even know where he stands*

Then what are you attacking mr_basil_seal and why?

*He is nothing more than an antagonist trying to get ones blood boiling.*

One could say the same about your posts. Again, perception/opinion.

*Once he achieves that he can point out an imature childish reaction that would discredit anything the poster has to say.*

I would suggest one not act childish then. i.e. *He is nothing more than an antagonist trying to get ones blood boiling.*

How are you tonight DBW? mr_basil_seal certainly doesn't need anyone to defend him, but your post seems quite out of bounds.

nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 10:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Anybody see where Obama's mother has been traced to a slave from 1640 Virginia? Apparently, this work took two years by Ancestry.Com.

http://mycenturylink.com/news/read.php?rip_id=%3CDA0BHHFO1%40news.ap.org%3E&ps;=1018

The funny thing (or ironic ) is that Ancestry.Com has really close ties to the Church of the Latter day Saints. Hope Romney doesn't try to discredit them.

hawkeye — July 30, 2012 at 10:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye- nailingit @ 2:15

nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 10:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*And yes, the government is too big. There are many agencies that can be eliminated because of redundancy.*

danabwoodley — July 29, 2012 at 9:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal | Ignore User )

Would you please list at least five of these "many agencies"?

nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 10:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AXfHpq...

An oldie but goodie. Rachel addresses some right wing talking points that many conservatives buy into. To include the shyster Beck.

nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 11:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Analyzing Glenn Beck, Fox News & "Socialism".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B4rF-m...

nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 11:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 10:38 p.m.

Sorry, I missed it. Funny though.

Obama, still not a citizen? Only in Arizona.

hawkeye — July 30, 2012 at 11:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VrIi3m...

hawk/others- Check out this vid on birth certificates. Definitely in the LMAO category!!

nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 11:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*The only thing the Muller study proves is that the Koch foundation does not dictate the outcome of science funded by them.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.

frobert- I thought you might appreciate this opinion piece from the LA Times.

**Koch-backed scientist shows he hasn't been bought**

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-muller-climate-20120730,0,3167677.story

nailingit — July 31, 2012 at 12:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


In relation to the Times article.

http://berkeleyearth.org/

nailingit — July 31, 2012 at 12:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — July 30, 2012 at 10:40 p.m

Let's start with DoD and DHS. Really see no reason for two separate departments. Merge them since they have essentially the same mission.

AFSRI, INSCOM, MCIA, NGA, NSA, ONI, NRO, DIA, OICI, CGI, I&A;, ONSI, INR, and TFI. All serve the same function, just to separate agencies. Eliminate all those, centralize under the CIA. This would force cooperation and sharing.

DVA could be eliminated and placed as a section of DoD. The purposes are closely enough related.

Most other departments don't really need to be a separate department (Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and others). They could fall under Interior.

Now this would not necessarily change the number of agents required to serve the function, but by combining agencies there would be fewer senior leadership requirements (Secretary, director). Some of these leaders and agents could be uniformed service members (whose pay tend to be less than civilian equivalent). This would provide some savings. Maybe not much relatively speaking, but some.

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 1:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


WOW! :) Quite a list DBW. For some reason it gives me a headache. Bagging all the chess pieces, putting them into a bucket and hoping for a good outcome. If this is all about expenditure, where's the savings? Valued leadership positions, valued departments gone and for what? The possibility of saving a few nickels? I'm sure we would be one big happy family!

Why stop there? Let's bag the Army, Air Force, Navy, Marines, & Coast Guard into one force. The AAFNMCG. The most populated department would be..... logistics.

We could expedite totalitarian warfare. America's imperialistic march is getting old anyway, and whatever moral code or high ground we used to have died decades ago. The Department of Totalitarianism Imperialistic Warfare Incorporated. Or the DOTIWI. (It must be incorporated to continue acting against the peoples best interest. :)

But hey, you're active duty, who am I to argue with so many abbreviations. I just wonder if you've thought this through.

nailingit — July 31, 2012 at 2:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Being active duty, I have seen detrimental effects of a disjointed unity. When you have so many players trying to rule the same space and not communicating, you tend to have an affinity to streamlining.

Especially in the Intelligence Community, a unity of effort is paramount. With so many separate agencies, that unity sometimes doesn't exist. Why do we have so many agencies collecting the same data and drawing the same conclusions?

I have considered the possibility of unifying the military into one service. Again, slim down the senior leadership. Honestly, the biggest hurdle to this would be everyone's obsession with tradition.

I do not have any data as to how much could be saved. But I personally believe that any saving is better than none.

I just have a working man's budget mentality I guess.

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 3:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*The purposes are closely enough related.
Most other departments don't really need to be a separate department (Agriculture, Commerce, Labor, and others). They could fall under Interior.*

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 1:31 a.m

Easy enough to make a claim; however consider that there is large body of specialized information in each area. There are also different aspects to each area's charter.

*I do not have any data as to how much could be saved. But I personally believe that any saving is better than none.*

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 3:13 a.m.

And probably no idea of the costs - both in dollars and in lowered efficiency - of making such a conversion.....

What you have done is basically echo a rw trope that has not been - for one example - well researched for its costs.

Just a talking point.

In an election year.

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 6:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I will gladly admit that I have found no study that gives a figure to the number of people that are abusing the public assistance system. danabwoodley — July 19, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.

So, basically, just an attempt at a red herring via a rw talking point. Good to know.....

And on the same topic, next question. Why is it a bad thing to require drug testing in order to recieve assistance? danabwoodley — July 19, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.

And yet another attempt....

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 6:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*His leaving out known factors like radiation has also gotten him harsh criticism.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 4 p.m.

Source?

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 6:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


#**Bombshell: Koch-Funded Study Finds ‘Global Warming Is Real’, ‘On The High End’ And ‘Essentially All’ Due To Carbon Pollution**
By Joe Romm on Jul 28, 2012 at 5:31 pm

“The decadal land-surface average temperature using a 10-year moving average of surface temperatures over land. Anomalies are relative to the Jan 1950 – December 1979 mean. The grey band indicates 95% statistical and spatial uncertainty interval.” A Koch-funded reanalysis of 1.6 billion temperature reports finds that “essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.” Via BEST.
The Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Study (BEST) is poised to release its findings next week on the cause of recent global warming.
UPDATE (9 pm, 7/28): A NY Times op-ed by Richard Muller, BEST’s Founder and Scientific Director, has been published, “The Conversion of a Climate-Change Skeptic.”
Here is the money graf:
CALL me a converted skeptic. Three years ago I identified problems in previous climate studies that, in my mind, threw doubt on the very existence of global warming. Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.
Yes, yes, I know, the finding itself is “dog bites man.” What makes this “man bites dog” is that Muller has been a skeptic of climate science, and the single biggest funder of this study is the “Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000).” The Kochs are the leading funder of climate disinformation in the world!

It gets better:
Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.
These findings are stronger than those of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the United Nations group that defines the scientific and diplomatic consensus on global warming.
**In short, a Koch-funded study has found that the IPCC “consensus” underestimated both the rate of surface warming and how much could be attributed to human emissions!**

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 6:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal



#**Parched Corn Fields and the Global Market**
Christopher Hayes on July 30, 2012 - 1:35 PM ET

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Corn prices have spiked 50 percent over the past two months—the same months that have established this season as our worst period of drought in more than 50 years. Lack of water combined with extreme heat for stretches of 100 or more days is spelling doom for crops like corn and soybeans, and prices are following suit.

On his show Sunday, Chris spoke with an Ohio produce farmer whose fields of failed crops point to a problem that goes far beyond her family's losses: The reverberations of parched fields in the Midwest may be felt around the world.

http://www.thenation.com/blog/169156/parched-corn-fields-and-global-market

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 6:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Spare us your Orwellian rewrites of history. Lincoln was in fact a republican, yes there are a few platform differences in today's party but not many.*
....

frobert — July 5, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.

Your claim is the "Orwellian rewrites of history".

I have primary sources for your claim about the Republican Party platform over the years; let's see your proof for "..there are a few platform differences in today's party but not many."

I can understand that you'll need a few days. It has taken a couple of weeks for you to provide a source that shows what you consider a reliable delegate count.*

So, I don't expect a substantive reply for awhile; but could we hope for next week's forum?

*And that includes you not acknowledging the .uk blog that RP links to as reliable......

- - -
Hmmm, that was from http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/ju...

And we don't have any science to support your denier claims from the week after that....

Easy to type out - or even copy paste - some opinion / talking points.

Seems a bit harder to actually bring evidence of what informs ones thinking.

Seems a bit harder to actually bring evidence that supports those opinions.

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 7:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 6:34 a.m

Lower efficiency? Only if our designated (elected) officials allow it to be ineffecient. If they do, then we exercise our right to fire them at the ballot box.

Election year talking point? I suppose that jab may sting a bit if I were actually running for office.

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 6:35 a.m

red herring attempt at rw talking point?

Could it be that this is an issue that I am personally concerned about regardless of political affiliation?

As I have stated, yes I am a conservative. I am a Christian.

Do these automatically make me evil? Am I to be shunned, reviled, or possibly even humiliated for the sole reason that I do not conform to what others believe?

That is what I get from you.

And for the record, this is opinion. An opinion formed on the basis of experience.

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 7:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 7:40 a.m.

It isn't whether you are a xtian or a conservative; it is about the basic fact that you are spouting out talking points and acknowledge you have no data to support them.

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 7:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawk-

Maybe Ancestry.com can find his Birth certificate and not the document he provided ..Just thought it was worth a shot this early in he morning.. Now that i think of it, it took only two years to find out out his ancestry, it would probably take a lifetime to get his US birth certificate...

vanwadreamer — July 31, 2012 at 8:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — July 31, 2012 at 9:24 a.m.

You might want to read the article. It explains the whole thing.

vanwa, if his Mother's lineage actually goes back to 1640 Virginia, why would YOU need a birth certificate? I'll bet that's longer than yours.

hawkeye — July 31, 2012 at 10:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 6:35 a.m.

The data you are requesting of danabwoodley would be accessible only to those who are working directly on the backlog of cases waiting to be dealt with...and do not become public till each case has been made public by the officials. Also, the cases are not just limited to the client/patients. Fraud is also coming from the clinics, the pharmacies, the therapists and so on and so forth. Not a "red herring" issue. To deny the fact that this issue exists is a rather blind take on the matter.

Here's one to get you started, Basil:

http://da.co.la.ca.us/wf/conv.htm

...and another (sorry, it's fox):

http://www.fox11online.com/dpp/news/local/on_assignment/woman-sentenced-in-welfare-fraud-case

...oops...even one example here in Washington State:

http://www.tri-cityherald.com/2010/09/17/1172793/pasco-man-sentenced-in-welfare.html

Here's an article you might find interesting:

http://www.commonwealthfoundation.org/research/detail/welfare-fraud-and-abuse

goldenoldie — July 31, 2012 at 10:17 a.m. ( | suggest removal


For the record, just because someone doesn't take the time out to find the data another requests, it doesn't mean the person requesting the information is always correct in their assumption.

goldenoldie — July 31, 2012 at 10:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 7:08 a.m.

And we still don't have your so called "primary sources" that Lincoln was not a republican.

We have a prime example yesterday, of you being mistaken on a political process and you spent hours denying your simple mistake. In the end you insisted that I was wrong, just because you said so.

As far as global warming goes, you use the political term "denier" and that sums up your totally political not scientific view.

Also your accusation that I "copy paste" my writing, is offensive, if you are accusing me of pauperism you better have some extraordinary evidence.

frobert — July 31, 2012 at 11:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


psst....fro...

Be aware...there's folks on here who like to get your goat...to tick you off...who get their kicks by raising your dander. Why feed the fire?

Not worth the headache, my fellow forum follower. Of anybody...I should know that the best, since I've let my feathers get ruffled on many an occasion, here.

You share your opinion and shouldn't have to be criticized for what you believe. Agreeing to disagree never hurts.

goldenoldie — July 31, 2012 at 11:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal



Drift, Dana and Nail.

Basil does discriminate, he will argue all day long on a subject he has been factually proved wrong on, yet he will never call out questionable "facts" or sources if they come from left leaning posters.

Basil isn't about facts, he is about condemning and as we see today personal attacks against those who have differing opinions.

frobert — July 31, 2012 at 12:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawk-

Your so silly.
I was actually BORN in the US.. You may need a cup of Joe, then a shower.. Wake up Buddy it's 12:49

vanwadreamer — July 31, 2012 at 12:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 31, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.

Life, like open forums, isn't fair. Seems like I can remember days when I have been "chased after" by some dogs here as well.

Get over it.

hawkeye — July 31, 2012 at 12:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


vanwadreamer — July 31, 2012 at 12:49 p.m

I was asking YOU why YOU would need HIS birth certificate?

hawkeye — July 31, 2012 at 12:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — July 31, 2012 at 12:56 p.m.

Probably the same reason you complain about Romney only paying $3.2 million in taxes. Nothing more but partisan politics.

With all the real questions about these two and their records, too many people seem centered on these irrelevant distractions.

frobert — July 31, 2012 at 1:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawk- I don't need it I have my own that says exactly where I was born, attending physican also ... but this lady who is somehow "Maybe" related still don't or can't fathom it but oh welll it is written and you and many other beleive it...Obama is at least 10 times removed from her so for all we know he was born in 10 buck 2 and not the good ol US of A....LOL...

Fro- You are right, these are somewhat irrelevant, lets look at there jobs records.. Oh no the left don't want to go there except to blame bush, then go back to Illinois... According to yesterdays WSJ report, Romeny is considered by 45-31 by voters in being able to create jobs..Seems like many don't think someone who has held a real job can create real jobs.... Makes sense to me...

vanwadreamer — July 31, 2012 at 1:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


vanwadreamer — July 31, 2012 at 1:52 p.m.

The President doesn't create jobs, they never have and never will. On the real issues, like wasting money on foreign wars, suppressing basic liberties, or using federal tax dollars to violate state sovereignty... Well, on those matters Obama and Romney are in complete agreement. If you vote for ether if these candidates you are voting for more of the same.

frobert — July 31, 2012 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Wonder if it has a human cross-over here?
[link text][1]

[1]: http://twistedsifter.com/2009/09/tongue-eating-parasite/

soapbox4u — July 31, 2012 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Ooooooohhhhh, disgusting!!! My curiosity got the best of me on that one, Soapbox4u.

Ewww....it sends shivers through me just thinking about that picture.

goldenoldie — July 31, 2012 at 3:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Electrical grid failure in India: 650 million without power. Wonder if it could happen here?

soapbox4u: There's a horror flick script in that parasite scenario. :)

manthou — July 31, 2012 at 4:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — July 31, 2012 at 4:06 p.m.

"Wonder if it could happen here?"

If the global warming alarmists have their way it will happen here.

frobert — July 31, 2012 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou - one squirrel and the right set of compounding circumstances would do the job. Fail-safe? Most likely NOT.

soapbox4u — July 31, 2012 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


soapbox4u: There's a horror flick script in that parasite scenario. :)

manthou — July 31, 2012 at 4:06 p.m. ( permalink suggest removal | Ignore User )

Anymore, real life is competing out there with horror stories. This picture ranks second in a OMG factor, the other being a injured hand from the shredder.

soapbox4u — July 31, 2012 at 4:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — July 31, 2012 at 4:06 p.m

Have you ever seen the power grid in India? The power runs down the street on poles and if you need some, you climb the pole and wire in.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/matthieu-aubry/521614953/

hawkeye — July 31, 2012 at 4:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal



the article about the county re-doing the "emergency code" got me thinking. Why are the state and federal governments enacting things that sound as if they know the lid is going to come off in this country? The military can "detain" people for as long as the situation exists, but no one seems to define the situation. The gov can suspend all kinds of things under some emergency situation declaration. Seems weird.

mrd — July 31, 2012 at 5:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*The data you are requesting of danabwoodley would be accessible only ...
....Not a "red herring" issue. To deny the fact that this issue exists is a rather blind take on the matter.
goldenoldie — July 31, 2012 at 10:17 a.m.*

My point is that danabwoodley is tossing out a rw talking point that has little factual evidence to back it up. It is much like the 'voter fraud' issue.

IF either you or danabwoodley had actual stats we would all have them available.

You know, completed investigations, research sampling.

Then to top it off, danabwoodley tries the 'drug testing' rw talking point.

Yes, there are cases; even convictions. But give us a %; a solid number.

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 5:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 31, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.

Feel free to actually show us where I was "proven" wrong; I think you'll find that those "proven" wrong were blustering efforts without any facts to back them up.

And feel free to call out those " questionable "facts" or sources if they come from left leaning posters."

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 5:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — July 31, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.

If you read my post earlier, the party faithful from both parties are being distracted by irrelevant issues like birth certificates and taxes. Neither part proposes anything to fix the problems plaguing our country. We can't sustain the debt, ending the wars including the war on drugs would be a start, but we but not a fix. Our liberties must be restored, I am not just talking about the Patriot Act and NDAA, we have also lost the right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the court has ruled that our homes can be invaded and our assets seized without due process. Our federal tax dollars are being used to violate state sovereignty when DEA agents are raiding medical marijuana users and facilities.

Neither Romney or Obama believes that these are problems, let alone having a plan to fix them. These two parties have merged into one basically fascist party. They feed people fake scandals and sound bites, to throw us off track. Most people are too busy fighting for the (D)'s or (R)'s to figure out that they are fighting against freedom.

frobert — July 31, 2012 at 5:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 31, 2012 at 11:21 a.m.

*Spare us your Orwellian rewrites of history. Lincoln was in fact a republican, yes there are a few platform differences in today's party but not many. ....*

frobert — July 5, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.

I have primary sources for your claim about the Republican Party platform over the years; let's see your proof for "..there are a few platform differences in today's party but not many."

I can understand that you'll need a few days. It has taken a couple of weeks for you to provide a source that shows what you consider a reliable delegate count.*

So, I don't expect a substantive reply for awhile; but could we hope for next week's forum?

*And that includes you not acknowledging the .uk blog that RP links to as reliable......

Hmmm, that was from http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/ju...

And we don't have any science to support your denier claims from the week after that....

Easy to type out - or even copy paste - some opinion / talking points.

Seems a bit harder to actually bring evidence of what informs ones thinking.

Seems a bit harder to actually bring evidence that supports those opinions.

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 6 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 5:56 p.m.

I'm not going to waste my time going over this again with you.

frobert — July 31, 2012 at 6 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — July 31, 2012 at 6 p.m

That's ok; I totally understand why you wouldn't.

Your history of an inability to furnish any facts to back up your claims supports that.

And we'll continue to point that out.

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 6:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye at 4:44 PM: A picture is worth a thousand........

Thank you for the visual! Says it all!

manthou — July 31, 2012 at 6:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 1:31 a.m.,

I love conversations about what to cut in our government to save money. Ultimately, it doesn't matter - the system itself is broke. The rules we have to do business by make it so.

(But first, we don't need VA combined with DOD. DOD has been screwing the vet since at least the early '90s, when they came out with the no guaranteed health care for life decision. This despite recruiters using it as a selling point all through the '70s/'80s when they were begging people to enlist.)

As far as DOD goes, we've become inundated in stupidity that's costing the taxpayer billions. Someone else mentioned the Abrams; there are all kinds of weapons systems that remain in development despite the military leadership saying we don't want/need them. Congressmen and Senators want these; jobs for the home district.

Civilianizing (using contractors) has resulted in companies like KBR racking up profits beyond imagination in Iraq. Hmmm...., I distinctly recall being told rebuilding Iraq would cost us nothing; we'd get their oil fields going and they'd pay us back. Wonder how Haliburton made out with that one? I've yet to hear of anything going to our Treasury.

But the dumbest is what we do to ourselves. I work logistics. We have a completely screwed up system that pays no attention to saving money. We're required to buy supplies from certain sources (Lighthouse for the Blind, prison industries, DOD e-Mall). I can buy from Staples, Office Depot/Max, and paper and toner cartridges from a few sources at a lower cost. Further, I can negotiate a volume discount for the latter. But rules say this isn't allowed. Sorry. We also have to go through Contracting for anything that could be considered a service. Which also means payment through submitting documentation to DFAS. DFAS is incapable of processing anything on time. And my favorite bills are the ones from the banks we've bailed out - because DFAS takes 6-8 weeks to process a simple bill, the banks get to charge us late fees. Which get paid without a squawk. When we were allowed to pay locally, using our GPCs, we never paid a late fee. Things like facilities and vehicles now have to be obtained from GSA. My newest "favorite" gov't subsidy of private industry via this little bit of chicanery is Ford with the 2012 Focus; those pieces of garbage have been spending as much time having recalls corrected as they've been on the road.

I imagine people from other agencies have similar horror stories. We'd probably be better off if they'd fire the whole lot of us - both the elected and the career government. Replace us all with a bunch of housewives that have to understand and practice fiscal common sense.

roger — July 31, 2012 at 7:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 5:52 p.m.

*IF either you or danabwoodley had actual stats we would all have them available.
You know, completed investigations, research sampling.*

Basil, check out the Los Angeles County District Attorney link I provided you. Since much of the information regarding those who fraudulently utilize the system for benefits is state by state and county by county, I guess you don't have the time for other links I'd be more than willing to share. They provided their stats based on the information they had.

It's not up to me OR danabwoodley or anybody else to provide the stats. I've given you a sampling of what is available. You would have to undergo a case by case data collection system for each state in order to gain the actual stats you have requested. If it's so important for you to have the list of percentage of fraud statistics nationally, then I'd suggest you get crackin'...maybe even start with Washington State and what they consider as Welfare Fraud, then search through each state court record. You could make it easier for yourself as well just by working on 2011. And Basil, that doesn't even include the cases regarding insurance fraud, medical fraud and others listed. Just google "physicians and convictions of medicaid fraud" and you'll find a generous list of convictions. I won't even get into the issue of fraud by those who don't have the legal rights to live here in the US.

http://www.dshs.wa.gov/fraud/what.shtml

Now...if you want to continue doing your research, then you can go ahead and find the stats on each type of welfare fraud they have convictions on. Speaking for myself, I'm not going to waste any more time looking for actual numbers just because you claim there aren't any. Part of that is true...a nationwide statistic is difficult to find but if it means that much to you to find the stats...then it is your duty to do the research.

goldenoldie — July 31, 2012 at 9:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie — July 31, 2012 at 9:17 p.m.

You would fare better giving those instructions to danabwoodley:

*I will gladly admit that I have found no study that gives a figure to the number of people that are abusing the public assistance system. danabwoodley — July 19, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.*

since that is who is making not only the claim, but acknowledging an inability to find any data to support those assertions.

But that is quite normal for rw talking points....

mr_basil_seal — July 31, 2012 at 9:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Basil-

Here I will explain my problem with not providing a source for my facts.

Many people look at government budgets and consider the astronomical figures. When discussing trillions of dollars, a few thousand seem like a drop in a bucket when dying of thirst in the desert. Thoughts such as this by our representatives have led to much frivolous spending that gives us the deficit and debt we have today.
My problem is my small budget mentality. I value every penny. We use coupons while shopping. We look for sales when planning a major purchase. For me, any savings is better than no savings at all. This means that I am angered by only one case of the system being abused.

Also, I am a firm believer in helping people in need. But I do not like being a doormat. When one gets to a point where they feel they don't need to do for themselves because others will do for them, that is wrong. I do not wish to be a doormat for the lazy.

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


That being said, Goldie has offered some ideas for researching some facts. Is there anyone here who has the time to conduct the research? I, for one, do not. I am busy with my career, which is helping to provide this assistance.

But, going back to my one case of abuse is too many schtick, I have witnessed cases of the system being abused. Yes, I have contacted authorities. They work slow. I have also been told that one report is not sufficient evidence to investigate a case. While I somewhat understand this logic, it still doesn't pass the smell test. If this were a valid argument across the board, then cases of sexual harassment wouldn't be investigated. If it has only happened one time, to one victim, then it doesn't warrant the time to investigate.

Drug testing? Yes I support it. I believe I also proposed that should a recipient recieve a conviction in a court of law, then all aid cease, retroactive to the date of the offense. I may be taking it too far, but if you violate the law, be it civil or criminal, you are a criminal. If you are participating in criminal activity, why should society support you. Guess what? Even if you don't agree with the law, recrational drug use is illegal. And if you have the cash to spend on your drugs, couldn't you afford your necessities without the public aid?

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Mitch McConnell calls for 'Obamacare' repeal vote as Democrats talk women's health**

Democrats are trying to talk up the benefits of "Obamacare" for women’s health Tuesday — but Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell is still trying to force a vote to repeal it.

On the Senate floor Tuesday morning, McConnell asked Reid if the Republicans would have a chance to offer a repeal amendment to the cybersecurity bill — just as Reid was finishing a passionate floor speech about how the law would be a big step forward for women and recalling his wife’s own battle with breast cancer.

Reid called the request “ridiculous,” and asked the Senate floor reporter to “note the smile on my face.”

“I guess the answer is no,” McConnell said — but insisted he’ll keep trying.
Right after the exchange on the floor, Reid’s office blasted out an email accusing Republicans of reviving “the war on women.”

Reid and other Senate Democrats are making floor speeches about the health care law’s requirement for employers to cover contraception without a co-pay. The rule goes into effect Wednesday.

“For years, American women have unfairly borne the burden of high costs of contraception as well,” Reid said, speaking from the Senate floor, adding that, “starting tomorrow, insurance plans must cover contraception.”

Reid called the ACA provision a matter of fairness. “Anything that a man wanted, they got,” he said, referring to insurance coverage. “Viagra? Fine, we’ll take care of that.”

He added: “I can’t remain very calm about this. … I want my granddaughters to be able to go get contraception,” he said. “They should have the ability to do that.”
Reid lauded the law’s focus on preventive health care — especially when it comes to cancer screenings such as mammography for women.

“Most people in the Senate know that my wife has battled breast cancer,” Reid said. “She found she was in Stage 3 of breast cancer and it has been very difficult. But what if she had waited an extra year?”

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79191.html#ixzz22GvJtqpE

nailingit — July 31, 2012 at 11:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I suppose it need not be said, but mr basil seems to require sources to support facts. So I offer this unsupported fact:

There are numerous lights in the night sky which we refer to as stars. By definition however, not all of them are stars. Many are other planets and other celestial bodies. These items reflect the light of the sun (also a star, by the way) or other stars back to our vision here on earth (which is a spheroid, by the way).

Is anyone going to challenge my claims? Do I need to cite sources?

Anyone requesting a source, I can assume, disagrees with my assertions. In doing so, I will also assume that you have source to backup your belief.

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**No Savings Are Found From Welfare Drug Tests**

MIAMI — Ushered in amid promises that it would save taxpayers money and deter drug users, a Florida law requiring drug tests for people who seek welfare benefits resulted in no direct savings, snared few drug users and had no effect on the number of applications, according to recently released state data.

“Many states are considering following Florida’s example, and the new data from the state shows they shouldn’t,” said Derek Newton, communications director for the American Civil Liberties Union of Florida, which sued the state last year to stop the testing and recently obtained the documents. “Not only is it unconstitutional and an invasion of privacy, but it doesn’t save money, as was proposed.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/18/us/no-savings-found-in-florida-welfare-drug-tests.html

nailingit — July 31, 2012 at 11:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Florida's welfare drug tests cost more money than state saves, data shows**

Read more here: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/04/20/2758871/floridas-welfare-drug-tests-cost.html#storylink=cpy

nailingit — July 31, 2012 at 11:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*My problem is my small budget mentality.

For me, any savings is better than no savings at all. This means that I am angered by only one case of the system being abused.*

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:21 p.m.

*Drug testing? Yes I support it.*

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:34 p.m.

Given that data supports welfare drug testing wastes taxpayer $$$, and this seems to be a case of "one case of the system being abused" by doing so, how does this square with your *I value every penny.* mentality?

Not to mention people down on their luck being humiliated by pissing in a cup to receive basic assistance so their kids can eat.

I'm glad we are no longer losing up to 700,000 jobs a month as we were in the last year of the George Bush presidency. Sometimes people tend to look down their noses at those who are less fortunate without appreciating the dynamics involved. Many of these "lazy" people suffered at the hands of an incompetent administration, and became unemployed through no fault of their own.

Maybe "Christian Humanists" such as you lay claim to be, should step back and take a hard look, not only at the party they support, but the "good news" Jesus Christ trumpeted to those who wished to follow him.

Just sayin'...

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 12:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — July 31, 2012 at 11:36 p.m

Nail-

I realize that you post was not you stating you opinion, nor was it asking for anyone elses, but it discusses another issue I am very opinionated about.

Contraception=war on women. I do not seem to get the connection.
First of all, I have not once heard a single lawmaker make the statement "I believe that all forms of contraception should be strictly banned and prohibitted in the United States of America" If this has happened, please correct me.
Next, I agree that women's health is an important issue. All women should be able to recieve care for the feminine specific conditions they encounter. Again, I have not heard of anyone saying "Let all women get cancer in their breasts, ovaries, or uterus and die"

(maybe I am being a bit extreme, but some of those fighting against the war on women make it out to be that extreme)

I do not, however, see the corellation between womens health and contraception. The primary purpose of contraception (again, correct me if I am wrong) is to prevent the expected biological result of a sexual act. So everyone want access to these for the purpose of engaging in sex with out the result (I refuse to refer to a child as a "consequence" or a "punishment")
This sounds like a choice. Why should anyone be legally compelled to pay for the choice of another? Whether you recieve coverage through a government program (Medicaid or Tricare) or a private company (Blue Cross/Blue Shield or Kaiser), someone else is at least helping you foot the bill. Yes, you may pay premiums, but so do others to that company. If the company must cover this service, then they much generate the revenue to pay these bills. That means everyone will pay the higher premiums. (you don't think they use only your premium money to pay for your bills do you? all premium revenue is pooled to cover costs)

Don't get me wrong, I am not against sex. I like sex as much as anyone else. But, if you want to be able to engage in sex without pregnancy, you should be willing to pay for it yourself. I am not expecting anyone else to pay for the results of my choice to have sex.

Some are concerned that the women are paying for it alone. Well, if you cannot get your partner to help, then you should be a bit more discriminating about your partner.

What about STDs you say? Well, those aren't women specific are they? Again, if you want to prevent them, you should be willing to pay for your own condoms. Ladies, again, if your partner isn't helping, you should put your foot down. (I could use a different phrase, but I don't want to be rude)

But hey, that is my view, right?

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 12:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW-*Given that data supports welfare drug testing wastes taxpayer $$$, and this seems to be a case of "one case of the system being abused" by doing so, how does this square with your I value every penny. mentality?*

Incorrect. I repeat...

Given that data supports welfare drug testing wastes taxpayer $$$, and this seems to be a case of "one case of the system being abused" by doing so, how does this square with your I value every penny. mentality?

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 12:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DWB- Above post should have read...

*I realize that you post was not you stating you opinion, nor was it asking for anyone elses,*

Incorrect. I repeat...

Given that data supports welfare drug testing wastes taxpayer $$$, and this seems to be a case of "one case of the system being abused" by doing so, how does this square with your I value every penny. mentality?

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 12:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**GOP may let contraception rule take effect without a fight**

This spring, Republicans were on a mission: repeal the Obama administration’s rule to require employers to cover birth control.

House Speaker John Boehner even stood on the floor of the House in February and promised that Congress would act. “This attack by the federal government on religious freedom in our country must not stand and will not stand,” Boehner said.

But now, with the rule set to take effect Wednesday — part of the “Obamacare” law the GOP hates so much — the fiery repeal rhetoric has fizzled. In fact, few on Capitol Hill are saying anything about it at all.

And that House vote to block the rule? Never happened — and isn’t in the works either. A group of die-hards on the issue asked for it again in a closed-door meeting Wednesday with House leadership but said no promises were made.

Even Rep. Jeff Fortenberry (R-Neb.), one of the most vocal critics of the rule and co-sponsor of a bill to eliminate it, has gone quiet now that the rule is about to kick in.
It’s a reminder of how fast things changed for Republicans this spring.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0712/79063.html#ixzz22HMLMILG

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 12:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Wow.

Amazingly, Bush is blamed again. While I am in no way claiming that everything in that administration was rosey, peachy keen (just as I will not claim this administration failed at everything they have done), I think that would qualify as a lw talking point (since I am considering changing my name to rw talking point)

I will not say it isn't embarassing for some (not all) people to go to the office and apply to recieve assistance to support their family. I know it would be a tremendous assault on my pride and ego. But bottom line is this, if you are not doing anything wrong why should it be an issue to provide the sample? If you are recieving public assistance, why can the public not get an assurance their assistance isn't being abused?

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 1:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail-

I looked over both articles you posted about the testing in FL. There is some good data provided on the situation. But....

They point out the differnce of the expenditure and the savings in unpaid assistance. There is a vagueness to this though. It doesn't specify the figures used in the projection of assistance savings. How much in monthly assistance per case? How long recieving assistance? I would suspect they only projected the 4 month that the testing was taking place prior to the court injunction. (Just a hunch on my part)

Whether you want to believe it or not, data can be manipulated in a way that it is still factual, but produce the conclusion one desires.

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 1:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


dana- let's try this one more time...

Given that data supports welfare drug testing wastes taxpayer $$$, and this seems to be a case of "one case of the system being abused" by doing so, **how does this square with your I value every penny. mentality?**

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 1:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 12:43 a.m

The post I was referring to was the Mitch McConnell headline.

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 1:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*There is some good data provided on the situation. But....*

*I would suspect*...

*(Just a hunch on my part)*

Your opinion has quickly morphed into nothing but a right wing talking point.

*Whether you want to believe it or not, data can be manipulated in a way that it is still factual, but produce the conclusion one desires.*

Yes...and stars sparkle.

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 1:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I was merely trying to emphasize that this was opinion before anyone began to clamor for supporting evidence.

But I think I shall adopt what appears to be everyone's favorite phrase as my signature block.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 1:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I'm always taken back when right wingers such as yourself dismiss history, even the most recent of history. the Bush debacle was only a few years ago. i.e. *Amazingly, Bush is blamed again.*

You know what they say about history, "those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Romney's team is loaded with Bush economic advisors and neo-cons, and most of you right wingers could care less, as long as you have a candidate that will push your culture wars and further the right's extremest social agenda.

How was it when Newt Gingrich referred to such in a debate several months ago?

Oh yeah, a “ radical, right-wing, social engineering,” movement from the Republicans.

But I suppose it's all about ... the economy, right? :)

Conservatives.....they're destroying our country, one vote at a time.

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 1:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


And yes, it is true that Christ teaches us to help the poor generously. I know this because I do on occasion immerse myself into the Gospels as a way to ensure I am doing my utmost to live my faith.

While He does say we should not respond to evil with evil (turn the other cheek), I do not recall, however, He ever requires us to be walked upon.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 2 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 1:59 a.m.

Careful, nail. You are making an assumption.

I have stated that I am a conservative, but not a Republican. I have not once stated my preferred candidate for any office. Yes you can make assumptions based on what I have posted, but you are on the verge of stating that as fact.

I will freely admit that there are many republicans that do not act like true conservatives. And I did say the 2001-2009 were not a perfect administration in any way.

I also believe that credit and blame are sometimes misplaced. I do not believe you can give credit to Clinton for the economic boom of the '90s. I do not believe you can give Newt Gingrich credit for the balance budget/surplus at the end of Clinton's administration. I do not believe you can blame Bush for the recession. I do not believe you can blame Obama for the auto bailout, or the failed stimulous. I do not believe you can give anyone in office credit for the recovery we are beginning to see (slowly happening, but yes I will agree it is happening).

I find it amazing though, how quickly I am labeled.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 2:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/31/nyregion/army-jury-acquits-sergeant-of-driving-pvt-danny-chen-to-suicide-in-afghanistan.html

OK, so some of you are now wondering why I am posting this. I am not here to applaud the panel their verdict. I am not here to disparage PVT Chen's abilities as a Soldier, or SGT Holcomb's ability as a leader.

What I am posting this for is to ask a question that I am still struggling with. Why is PVT Chen's heritage so important in this case? I understand that a portion of the case against SGT Holcomb was his use of racial slurs toward PVT Chen. But that aside, what else about his heritage is important?

I posted before about the things that we allow to divide us. This is another example.

I dare everyone here to rise above such a foolish thing. Do not let the things we claim to be irrelevant to continue to divide us. I personally see this in the same league as racial profiling in police work.

But hey, that's my opinion.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 3:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:21 p.m.

So basically

*I will gladly admit that I have found no study that gives a figure to the number of people that are abusing the public assistance system. danabwoodley — July 19, 2012 at 12:03 a.m.*

you seem to be concern trolling.....

You've brought up two 'issues' that you bring no data, no proof, no rationale.

goldenoldie was nice enough to give you a fairly well thought out research strategy; perhaps you should follow it and come back when you have something to actually post.

Until then, what you are doing is the same as the rw talking point about voter fraud.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 6:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


" Is there anyone here who has the time to conduct the research? I, for one, do not. I am busy with my career, which is helping to provide this assistance."

???????

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 6:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Is anyone going to challenge my claims? Do I need to cite sources?
Anyone requesting a source, I can assume, disagrees with my assertions. In doing so, I will also assume that you have source to backup your belief.*

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:42 p.m.

Your 'claim' is a rw talking point. IF you really want to talk about this 'issue' you are so concerned about, bring us the data that show it to be an 'issue'.

" *Is there anyone here who has the time to conduct the research? I, for one, do not. I am busy with my career, which is helping to provide this assistance.*"

And then the pity card.....

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 6:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"*(maybe I am being a bit extreme, but some of those fighting against the war on women make it out to be that extreme)*"

Really?

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 6:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


There seems to be an echo in the forum since last night(tease)...8)))

Danabwoodley, you could explain yourself over and over again that you are a Conservative who is a Christian (as I am as well), but no matter how you say it...you're speaking from Right Wing Talking Points according to those who either don't understand where you're coming from or are out for an argument because of a difference of opinion.

Been there, done that x10.

BTW, nice post at 11:42 pm. Excellent point made (and a smile on my face as well).

.

Mister Basil @9:28 pm...

You state that I should be giving the instructions to danabwoodley. I appreciate the fact that you recognize my posts as good instructions, but the fact is...

It is you who is asking for them. Danabwoodley (as well as myself and just about everyone else on the forum) have recognized an obvious issue plaguing our nation when it comes to fraud costing the taxpayers BIG bucks and believe it is a fact which speaks for itself. I'm merely directing you to acquire the information you seek.

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 7:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal



nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 1:33 a.m.

Are you noticing the similarities of RWTP's posts and those of the first iteration of Kendall's? Similar positions, posting as a concern troll, grammar that seems a bit off the standards, expression of 'being picked on', lack of response to specific points....

Not saying sock puppet. But interesting that similar POV and how the forum is used correlation. At least crazytrain posts links to what informs the thinking.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 7:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr basil-

You have succeeded in piecing apart my posts to make some sort of point that I am the foolish one with the concerns I have, or to comment on a side note that I make. But have you nothing to say regarding the point of my post?

What do you think about being legally required to provide coverage for contraception?

And why no response to my "unsourced" claims on the night sky?

You remind me of a schoolyard bully.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 7:24 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Goldie does make a good point. The main issue is fraud. And it happens in other places as well. I pointed out a lot of areas that can be consolodated due to redundancy within the government, and there were those that refuse to see the merits of the idea.

For those watching the news, some lawmaker have allocated money in the DoD budget to a program the DoD doesn't want. (Afterall, when most of the lawmakers have never served in any capacity, they certainly know better than the military professionals what the military needs, right?)

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 7:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"*But have you nothing to say regarding the point of my post?*"danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 7:24 a.m.

When you can prove your points have a basis in reality, we could discuss them.

'Til then, concern troll or a copy-paster of rw talking points.

"*And why no response to my "unsourced" claims on the night sky?*"

*There are numerous lights in the night sky which we refer to as stars. By definition however, not all of them are stars. Many are other planets and other celestial bodies. These items reflect the light of the sun (also a star, by the way) or other stars back to our vision here on earth (which is a spheroid, by the way).*

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:42 p.m

????????

There. I was going to post that earlier, but thought it rather redundant

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 7:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*It is you who is asking for them. Danabwoodley (as well as myself and just about everyone else on the forum) have recognized an obvious issue plaguing our nation when it comes to fraud costing the taxpayers BIG bucks and believe it is a fact which speaks for itself. I'm merely directing you to acquire the information you seek.*

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 7:05 a.m

First, if there is an "obvious issue plaguing our nation" then there is data showing it.

IF there were data, those concerned would use it.

And, I'm not "seeking" the data, I'm asking those purporting there is an "obvious issue plaguing our nation" show us what informs their thinking.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 7:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal


basil-

You place a lot of importance on proof and data and sources. I will not condemn this. Afterall, our justice system is based on the concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

But with the way you hawk at it, I have a question...

Is there anything that you believe just as a matter of faith?

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 7:59 a.m.

He accepts common political myth as fact e.g. the president needs legislative approval to reschedule drugs or Lincoln wasn't really a republican.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Maybe danabwoodley and goldenoldie can help Jeffrey M. Wynn when the data is found.....

" *the budget can be fixed by getting the lazy people off of welfare* "

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/ju...

www.columbian.com/news/2012/jul/30/letter-in-praise-of-fighter-jet-noise/

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 8:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 7:59 a.m.

Nope.

Science, empiricism.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 8:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


In my opinion, "welfare" should be pretty low on our priorities when deciding where to cut. These programs may be an overstep of federal authority and more appropriately served by states or charities but they do serve a purpose, unlike the war on drugs or suppression of civil liberties.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 8:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*the president needs legislative approval to reschedule drugs or Lincoln wasn't really a republican.*

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 8:04 a.m.

Got cites for those?

Oh, speaking of cites:

How about your support for your claims on Anthropogenic Climate Change:

frobert — July 18, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.

Let us know when you've found what you consider the science that supports your claims. All we've seen so far is you denying that the well established science is valid.

With no alternative explanation that fits to the current observations.

Or the observations for the past 100+ years.

From scientists working in many fields.

From observations from every continent on Earth.

From scientists from virtually every continent.

From scientists living under a range of governments.

Science agreed to by every major scientific organization.

And all you bring is a denial of that science.

Still waiting...

AND

*Lincoln was in fact a republican, yes there are a few platform differences in today's party but not many. ....*

frobert — July 5, 2012 at 2:30 p.m.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 8:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


AND

*Drug scheduling is decided by the executive branch, no legislation is needed.*

frobert — July 30, 2012 at 9:07 a.m

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 8:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


This is, in a sorta pitiful way, funny.

"McKenna's plan would take into account **a series of expected savings**, such as smaller government, more competitive state contracting and curbed health care costs, all ideas he's discussed before. The plan released Tuesday included a spreadsheet that puts dollar figures onto how much would go toward education in the coming years through 2021.

The plan **assumes** that non-education spending growth is capped at 6 percent per biennium, and that state revenue would increase by 9 percent per biennium."

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/ju...

But at least he should get a small acknowledgement that he has done more than the puppet masters' with their inability to show us what their alternative to the ACA are.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 8:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal



crazytrain — August 1, 2012 at 8:13 a.m.

Irrational exuberance perhaps?

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 8:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal



crazytrain — August 1, 2012 at 8:19 a.m.

Part of the state's problems are the same issues the ACA has; based on the United States insurance corp.'s paradigm of cost of care delivery rather than looking at best practices for healthcare on a global scale.

BTW, I'd like to thank you for actually using some resources (and it seems recently, far more valid ones) rather than just tossing out some unsupported talking points.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 9:03 a.m. ( | suggest removal



#Proposed “Tax Reform” Requirements Would Invite Higher Deficits and a Shift in Taxes to Low- and Moderate-Income Families
Shows How Tax Reform Could Become a Trap If Not Designed Carefully

By Chuck Marr and Chye-Ching Huang

Republican legislation that was introduced in the Senate by Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) and Finance Committee ranking member Orrin Hatch (R-UT) and in the House by Ways and Means Committee Chairman Dave Camp (R-MI) would establish requirements for tax-reform legislation that could generate higher deficits and substantially shift tax burdens from high-income to low- and moderate-income taxpayers.[1]
The House version, on which the House will vote this week, would require congressional tax-writing committees to produce legislation next year that: 1) cuts the top individual tax rate from its current 35 percent level (and the 39.6 percent to which it’s slated to return on January 1) to 25 percent and cuts most other tax rates as well; 2) cuts the top corporate tax rate from 35 percent to 25 percent and eliminates corporate taxes on foreign profits; and 3) eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), which was established to ensure that all high-income taxpayers pay at least some minimal amount of tax. The House bill also provides a “fast track” process for House and Senate consideration of legislation that meets the bills’ requirements.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id;=3812

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 9:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


#Bush Appointee Strikes Down DOMA, Citing Historic Discrimination Against Gays And Lesbians

By Zack Ford

Another court has overturned the anti-gay Defense of Marriage Act, ruling in Pedersen v. Office of Personnel Management that **“no conceivable rational basis exists for the provision.”** Judge Vanessa L. Bryant, a district judge in the Second Circuit appointed by President George W. Bush, therefore ruled that DOMA “violates the equal protection principles incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”

http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/07/31/617231/bush-appointee-strikes-down-doma-citing-historic-discrimination-against-gays-and-lesbians/

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — August 1, 2012 at 9:06 a.m.

"That's how the republican party of Lincoln became the democrat party we have today."

This is a common myth, but in no way factual, the republican platform of 1856 clearly supports states rights and opposes extravagant excesses in government. This alone makes it clear that the republican party of today much closer resembles the original republican party than the democrats. Look at the original document not the revisionists rewrites.

http://www.cowanauctions.com/auctions/item.aspx?ItemId=1866

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 9:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


A 'slightly' less selective resource than an auctionhouse's jpg

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php

Or you could dig up more images at http://memory.loc.gov I suppose.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 9:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 9:46 a.m.

How can your example that was scribed by modern people be "less selective"?

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 9:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 1, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.

And one might note, though I note someone didn't, that both the Republican and Democratic party platforms of 1856 have flip-flopped on the concept of the role of the government in commerce.....

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 1, 2012 at 9:58 a.m

1- you can actually read the words

2- full source of the primary document

3- all party platforms from 1840

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"..*when in fact the slavery issue came about long after the war was started*"
crazytrain — August 1, 2012 at 9:59 a.m.

Ummmm, unless you have some documentation, I'd say this:

http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

points out how wrong your opinion is.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.

The republican platforms of 1856 and of 2008, support reasonable investment in transportation infrastructure, so I am not really sure of what you are talking about. Admittedly, I have not read the entire 2008 platform, so can you be more specific?

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 1, 2012 at 10:21 a.m.

After you finish your reading.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh, heck: let's go there anyway...

"Given that fully 97 percent of our current transportation vehicles rely on oil, we will aggressively support technological advances to reduce our petroleum dependence. For example, lightweight composites could halve the weight and double the gas mileage of cars and trucks, and together with flex-fuel and electric vehicles, could usher in a renaissance in the American auto industry."

"We urgently need to preserve the highway, transit, and air facilities built over the last century so they can serve generations to come. At the same time, we are committed to minimizing transportation's impact on climate change, our local environments, and the nation's energy use. Careful reforms of environmental reviews and the permitting process should speed projects to completion."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=78545

Can you show us examples of how the GOP has put that into action?

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:30 a.m.

We are talking about platforms, not the parties affinity for ignoring them once they get into office. Obama got elected using promises to stop raiding medical marijuana facilities and restoring individual liberties lost during the Bush administration.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 10:37 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — August 1, 2012 at 10:27 a.m.

Your source shows slavery as the 3rd reason / cause. Cause comes before effect. Slavery / Civil War not Civil War / Slavery.

And, we should point out you are picking one list. A list that actually doesn't fully support your claim.

BTW, number 1 is effected by the slavery issue.

As is just about every other point he was trying to make.

And, at this point it would seem worth noting that shelves full of books, stacks of dissertations have been written about this topic. I'd say a 5 pt. list is rather simplistic.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 1, 2012 at 10:37 a.m.

Then you probably shouldn't have used your claims about the 1856 GOP platform as 'proof'....

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Fro- Don't think we've had many discussions BUT>
The President doesn't create jobs, they never have and never will. On the real issues, like wasting money on foreign wars, suppressing basic liberties, or using federal tax dollars to violate state sovereignty..

You really believe that CRAP? Not only can a real President create jobs, they can also KILL jobs creation... No wonder you and Basil go around like a Fricken merry go round at a cheap fair...I won't even pretend I'll argue with you.. GO was right yesterday and you must be a Chiwawawawawa with 3 legs.

vanwadreamer — August 1, 2012 at 10:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:44 a.m.

It is absolute proof that the parties have not done a 180, as many falsely claim. Politicians not keeping their promises is quite another issue and in no way limited to one party.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 10:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal



*It is absolute proof that the parties have not done a 180*
frobert — August 1, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.

Walk us through how you came to that conclusion......

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


vanwadreamer — August 1, 2012 at 10:48 a.m.

I just reread Article two of the Constitution and "create jobs" still isn't there.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 11:14 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 10:54 a.m.

The actions of individuals does not diminish the outlined platform of the party, although it may diminish the credibility of the individual politician. The democrats support civil liberties that the President and others are fighting against, does this mean that the democrats no longer support civil liberties? I left the republican party years ago, not because of their platform(although some of it I oppose) but because of the individual politicians.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 11:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 7:40 a.m.

Okay Basil...let's see if I can explain this a bit different to you. First of all, not all data is correlated into neat little packages as you would like them to be. Fraud is evident in just about anything that has to do with money. The government has recognized the fact that there are issues, hence their hotline/snail mail/email links and directives. The government has also recognized the fact that some don't even realize they're bilking the government... hence the government's information on their websites which explain what you need to bring to court to present your case. Fraud also takes on another name...aka "Scam." In the case of scams...it isn't people bilking the government. They're bilking other people and businesses. Another issue of fraud is easily recognizable in the mortgage loan industry. Enough companies got in trouble with that one. Then there's the cases of insider trading...fraud. Regarding voter fraud...again, it is an issue of money. You might ask me why I'd say that, so I'll go ahead and explain as briefly as possible. With voter fraud, it's all in getting the votes to bring about a particular person into party...to either continue down the same fiscal path as the current leaders maintain or to make due change in leadership to end what some perceive as wasted spending. It is also to get the votes...say for instance, if voter fraud took place here in Vancouver and the light rail votes passed...it would affect our taxation.

In the case of the Columbia River Crossing, it is highly suspect that fraudulent activities were going on with regards to where the money was being spent...hence, Ms. Tiffany Couch was brought into the picture to oversee the books. Nobody is sure if it was intentional...but the questions are still open regarding the financial aspect of the crossing. Could it be that neglect of oversight is an act of involuntary fraud by those in charge...or was it intentional fraud??? Regarding the height of the bridge and the issues of the CRC going ahead with plans BEFORE getting the final approval of the USCG...was this fraudulent in the manner speaking of getting federal tax dollars secured before the final design was okayed by the USCG??? Some might say so. Others would say it was on oversight by those promoting the crossing.

So now Basil, if you want to truly get down to the nitty gritty about fraud, whether it be fraud in the medical industry, welfare fraud, insider trading, government spending, bridge construction or whatever...then you will find the data you seek; but to expect a general tally of compiled data, stating where fraud is most evident in our society...you know all too well that it won't be available.

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:10 p.m.

Using Basil's theory that until proof is given no opinion should be stated, nothing would be investigated. I personally believe that there is much less fraud in welfare than you and Dana seem to think there is but the lack of concrete evidence is irrelevant.

Drug testing for welfare recipients however is a separate issue, I would rather see these programs eliminated completely than violate the fourth and fifth amendments. Much like the ban on firearms in some public housing, Constitutional rights are of paramount importance and need to come first

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 12:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


...continued from my post at 12:10 pm:

Yet other aspects of fraud surface including government contracts and costs incurred. I'm speaking of companies who charge big bucks for products like ink pens, toilets, construction equipment, man hours and so on and so forth. Then there's the "I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine" scenario. Fraudulent way for special interests to get in on the profits...I believe Desert Storm, Iraq, Afghanistan and now places like Syria are showing these issues plain as day on the news. T

Then there's the "Federal, State and Local Grants" system. How many of these grants have even been utilized for what they were intended??? I'd love to see data on that one.

And what about those crooks who make fake money...fraudulent way to pay for products without paying anything. Care to gather data in that aspect? It's all over the news sites.

Boy...I could go on all day about this...but I believe I've proved my point. The fraud data is out there. It just depends on where you're looking, Basil.

And yes Basil, I'm a Conservative...a follower of the Christian Faith...in a conservative tone, mind you. Does that make me one who speaks only Right Wing Talking Points as well???

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Frobert...

When it comes to the Welfare System...do you speak of Medicaid benefits??? As far as I'm concerned, a person should have a drug test if they're going to be considered for Medicaid Benefits. That way, if they are in need of Medicaid and need assistance to rehabilitate themselves...some benefits could be directed in a manner which could help them. If they decline the test...then what is it they have to hide?

Now if you are speaking of Welfare System for housing and monthly expenses...our government isn't paying the people to shoot up their arms or snort crap through their nostrils. If they have nothing to hide and need the benefits...then what's the worry?

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Actually Frobert...when it comes to fraud in welfare, look no further than the immigrant situation with regards to undocumented workers...the headache the government hates to discuss. Unfortunately...when it comes to data collection on this subject, it's left as a generalized statement...an assumption in numbers by the government since they aren't supposed to profile people due to their race, creed, religion, sexual preference and so on and so forth.

Regarding Basil...I actually understand where Basil is coming from when it comes to wanting the hard facts...the data, but sometimes it's just not as readily available as Basil already knows but loves to give everyone a hard time in making statements which they don't want to do the research to verify in order to prove their case.

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:35 p.m.

The "if you have nothing to hide..." argument can, and already has been used to circumvent the Constitution. I don't have to have something to hide if don't want the government searching my house or reading my mail. We need to stand up for the Constitution for everyone not just for ourselves.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 12:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well Frobert, I can see what you are saying. Of course we need to stand up for the Constitution...that's a no brainer, but I have to ask you this...

Since a person can voluntarily choose to apply for welfare benefits (I know..it's either choose to apply or starve to death), knowing all too well that they have to do just about everything except sign their mother-in-law's life away (just joking on the mother in law), then what difference would it make if they were to take a drug test as well??? Do you think criminal background checks should be necessary in order to become a cop or join the military or to become a judge??? Nobody's twisting their arms for them to join just as nobody would be twisting the welfare recipient's arm as well. Would this too be a violation of rights according to the US Constitution?

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hmmm........

On another note....

Since I've been coming and going the past few months, I've noticed this morning, thanks to an email from a friend...that Matt Wastradowski's name is no longer listed under John Hill's name at the opening statement of this forum. Am I missing something here??? Is Matt no longer with the Columbian???

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


If you voluntarily choose to live in Vancouver should the city have the authority to search your house without a warrant? If we can drug test those applying for welfare, can we read the mail of those applying for social security?

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 12:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:10 p.m

The point is that the original argument was a claim about fraud and implied that it is / was a widespread problem with heavy financial cost.

IF our resident control troll posits that, then the onus is upon them to support their argument.

They have chosen not to; and rather, jumps to drug testing for public assistance recipients.

I haven't said there is no fraud. I am asking for support that the concern is a real issue.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 1:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 1, 2012 at 11:31 a.m.

So citing an organization's major position paper isn't valid then.

And we are still waiting for your proof of the claim about how the GOP hasn't changed 'very much'......

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 1:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


than the immigrant situation with regards to undocumented workers...the headache the government hates to discuss.
....

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.

You mean like the Kendall claim about how they were causing 'real Americans' difficulty going to school?

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 1:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


.*the data, but sometimes it's just not as readily available as Basil already knows but loves to give everyone a hard time in making statements which they don't want to do the research to verify in order to prove their case.*

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 12:39 p.m.

Might want to read a bit more closely.

IF you or others concerned with this public assistance fraud were truly looking for solutions, there would be data gathering before working on policy.

However, this 'fraud' issue virtually always comes up with no data. No gov't source, no thinktank source, nothing to show the extent.

It becomes, like death panels, drug testing, yellowcake, climate change denial, weapons of mass destruction, voter fraud, etc, etc, etc,,,,, rw talking point.

Unsupported rw talking points.

By claiming the research is difficult, you are excusing those making the claims from justifying their claims.

By claiming the research is difficult, you are excusing those making the claims from any responsibility to show us why, WHY they believe it to be an issue.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 1:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Email Web Edtor

Looks like they need a bit of editing help.....

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 1:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 1:32 p.m.

Your straw man argument does nothing to diminish my facts.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 2:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert at 1:35, extreme examples of exaggeration. Quid Pro Quo - something for something applies here.

soapbox4u — August 1, 2012 at 2:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 1:33 a.m.

*Are you noticing the similarities of RWTP's posts and those of the first iteration of Kendall's? Similar positions, posting as a concern troll, grammar that seems a bit off the standards, expression of 'being picked on', lack of response to specific points....*

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 7:16 a.m.

mr_basil_seal- I discovered this forum after Kendall left. Somehow I don't feel left out. :)

As far as similarities listed, *posting as a concern troll, grammar that seems a bit off the standards, expression of 'being picked on', lack of response to specific points....*, those items seem to prevail with many that post from the right end of the spectrum, especially "concern trolling, expression of 'being picked on' and lack of response to specific points"....just sayin' :)

I might add false/unproven accusations and a penchant for revising history. Which reminds me...

---

DBW- *I do not believe you can blame Obama for the auto bailout, or the failed stimulous.*

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 2:16 a.m.

Please explain why you believe the stimulus failed, and blame (why not credit?) for the auto bailout.

Also, at your convenience, please help me to understand your passion for unnecessary expenditure with regards to my post @ 12:20...

*My problem is my small budget mentality.

For me, any savings is better than no savings at all. This means that I am angered by only one case of the system being abused.*

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:21 p.m.

Drug testing? Yes I support it.

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:34 p.m.

Given that data supports welfare drug testing wastes taxpayer $$$, and this seems to be a case of "one case of the system being abused" by doing so, how does this square with your I value every penny. mentality?

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 3:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit

gotta like your Kirk and Nomad avatar.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I continually have to remind myself that these birther articles aren't satirical in nature...

**Steve King Ponders The 'Telegram From Kenya' Scenario, For The Birthers**

You know, we make fun of Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) for the way he opposes restricting dogfighting on the grounds that boxing exists, and isn't that the same thing? (No.) But you've got to hand it to King -- the man is an innovator.

Scott Keyes (who I guess is on the Steve King beat these days, not that I'm complaining) catches King indulging in a little bit of Birther Calvinball. He's pretty sure that Obama's papers are legit, but you never know, because reasons:

We went down into the Library of Congress and we found a microfiche there of two newspapers in Hawaii each of which had published the birth of Barack Obama. It would have been awfully hard to fraudulently file the birth notice of Barack Obama being born in Hawaii and get that into our public libraries and that microfiche they keep of all the newspapers published. That doesn’t mean there aren’t some other explanations on how they might’ve announced that by telegram from Kenya. The list goes on.

Sure, the list goes on! In this case, we have the "telegrammed birth announcement from Kenya" scenario, in which two Hawaii papers don't notice that they are receiving a telegram from Kenya. Meanwhile, the whole Birther story, distilled to its essence, implies that Barack Obama was spirited into citizenship thanks to a tight-lipped, Ocean's Eleven-style gang of conspirators that included several generations of state officials. In the scenario King offers, I guess none of them could think of a way to alert Hawaiian newspapers to Obama's birth besides sending a telegram from Africa.

"I wish we could come up with a way around this, guys," said the head of the secret Birther gang, "Somehow we were unable to account for the whole 'born in Kenya' thing when we set off on this amazing plan to falsely obtain citizenship for someone born in Kenya."

"Well, we could just have someone send the Hawaiian newspapers notice from Hawaii," said no one, apparently.

King is nevertheless resigned to the situation: "But drilling into that now, even if we could get a definitive answer and even if it turned out that Barack Obama was conclusively not born in America, I don’t think we could get that case sold between now and November."

The whole point to Birtherism, though, is that you don't need to conclusively make this case to sell it. It's just that the buyers are all blithering loons.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/steve-king-birther_n_1729613.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 3:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert @ 3:24 - :)) Somehow as of late it seems appropriate!

We don't see eye to eye on many things fro, but I'd be remiss not giving credit where credit is due. While admittedly I'm the first one to rag on opinions I don't agree with, I should be equally vocal with some in which I do.

*Drug testing for welfare recipients however is a separate issue, I would rather see these programs eliminated completely than violate the fourth and fifth amendments. Much like the ban on firearms in some public housing, Constitutional rights are of paramount importance and need to come first*

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 12:25 p.m.

*The "if you have nothing to hide..." argument can, and already has been used to circumvent the Constitution. I don't have to have something to hide if don't want the government searching my house or reading my mail. We need to stand up for the Constitution for everyone not just for ourselves.*

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 12:41 p.m.

*If you voluntarily choose to live in Vancouver should the city have the authority to search your house without a warrant? If we can drug test those applying for welfare, can we read the mail of those applying for social security?*

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 12:57 p.m.

I might add your/Libertarian views concerning US warfare, drug legalization & a few others are noteworthy. As I've said before with these issues, Obama is the lesser of two evils, and right on in other areas.

Now that that's out of the way, we can continue to rip each others heads off on occasion. :)

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 1, 2012 at 2:36 p.m.

Now tell us how you figure that.

You are getting quite a list of unsupported claims.

Something about how Anthropogenic Climate Change isn't real

GOP hasn't changed

Arguing with yourself about whether or not Lincoln was a Republican

And, without neglecting any others I've forgotten, now your definition of strawman.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 4:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cXRsdN...

I couldn't locate a vid with the argument Kirk made to Nomad, in which the imperfect creator created imperfection, and in turn caused Nomad to self destruct. (one of my favorite episodes) But this is cool!

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 4:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Basil, if you can find anywhere in the rules of the forum that states anybody who makes a statement of opinion based on what they know to be true MUST back up their statement with data, then I can wholly agree with your opinion at 1:44 pm. Otherwise, you have no idea what we do outside of the forum. For all you know, some of us have already made it quite clear to our elected officials that we are earnest in our concerns regarding fraud...no matter what type it may be.

I've noticed you AND nailingit (sorry Nail...but it's all too obvious from what I've been reading...and what's with this "your/Libertarian" stuff??? Why does it always have to include a label???) both thrive on throwing the "RWTP" card whenever it's convenient yet I do not see any of the people you pull your trump card on...shouting out "LWTP." One could say, it is an easy out for someone to pull out that "RWTP" card...especially when they know they're just shouting out empty statements.

So rather than trying to hit below the belt, honestly understand this that some don't have all the time in the world to do any investigative work...base their comments on what knowledge they possess...and will say what they want to say...without having to experience the feeling of being suppressed by someone else whose tendency is to instill control of who can say what or when or how or why. I don't know about you, but speaking for myself...I have recognized a major control issue amongst the forum dwellers which is causing this entire forum to become quite hostile lately...hardly a proactive environment for working to make our existence a unified existence. The only reason why I stepped in is simple...not to be controlling. Hardly! Just voicing my opinion, providing what information I can to help others, nothing less...nothing more. Maybe what info I have provided isn't helpful...but I haven't heard anybody tell me it wasn't so I must be helping someone.

And finally...I'm not excusing anybody by making my statements. Unless everyone here is experienced in data compilation and organization for attorneys to present their cases in front of a judge...we make do with what facilitates our statements with what data we can locate. The data is there...it's just a matter of compiling it together and for the average soul...it will take a lot more time than is necessary and by the time the data has been collected, everyone has moved on...except for you...you will not let go (heck, just reading your constant demands to Frobert is proof enough...and that is obvious data readily available on the C's website - that is, till one or the other is booted from the forum. Let's just say, it's the old saying "You can please some of the people some of the time...."

If I didn't know any different, I'd say you are one who works in the legal field...either as an attorney, a paralegal, a judge or a politician. You demand answers and you demand them NOW. Well my fellow forum dweller...not everyone plays.

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 4:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*and what's with this "your/Libertarian" stuff??? Why does it always have to include a label???)*

Libertarian is a political party. I was addressing libertarian beliefs, some of which I whole heartedly agree with. "your" was addressing frobert and acknowledging his libertarian beliefs.

Why go out of your way to address/demean another poster with something you don't understand?

No need to answer...

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 4:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Now tell us how you figure that."

You took the group (the republican party) replaced it with a subset or straw man(republican politicians that don't follow the platform) and concluded that because the subset or straw man did something that is what the group believes.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


How about a Dr. Hook song, written by Shel Silversten

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WdGnrw...

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 5:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 1, 2012 at 4:49 p.m

Oh, how I wish this were a threaded forum...

Actually, you made a claim about the GOP not changing much since 1856, based on a probable reading, or a partial reading of the 1856 party platform, or somebody telling you that.

Then a bit later said the platform wasn't important, it was the actions of the people. Or something.

So, you introduced the dichotomy; and it is STILL your job to show us how the party platform hasn't changed.

But the really important bit is that is just one in a string of unsupported claims that you choose to not explain your thinking on.

mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 5:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hey forum pals: I would like you to switch gears for a moment and help me understand something that has sent me into hyperspace and considering life as a Libertarian.

A woman in Seattle named Liz Browning (of the Browning automatic rifle family) has a son who is schizophrenic. He was doing very poorly until she and her hubby found a program in San Diego called Hanbleceya (hahnbluhchayuh). This treatment/residential program is spendy for those who can afford it (think $100,000 a year). It has been in business since 1979 and has no trouble filling houses and beds with willing and happy clients, by all accounts.

She was so excited about her son's progress (he is working now, a real contributing tax payer) that she started her own company to get investors to buy property here in WA so Hanbleceya can work its magic in another state. She was able to do this and raised about one million, which allowed Hanbleceya to purchase about 3 homes in tony Normandy Park (they are renting two others).

Can you sense where this is going?

Well, the Normandy Park folks don't like sharing space with the mentally ill, no matter how rich they are, and are trying to get the department of health to put an end to this program or regulate it out of existence. They claim to be worried about the safety of the residents, but I think they don't like their nice little neighborhood polluted by schizophrenia and depressives.

The government is saying (and I agree) that these folks are protected by fair housing laws and civil rights due to their disability and they can live where they please.

A Seattle Times pitbull reporter (who cannot hold a candle to her colleagues named Michael Berens and Ken Armstrong) has taken up the cause of the Normandy Park maligned and gave an unbelievable interview to King 5 news this week after penning another biased story meant to scare.

Here's what gets me: A Democratic member of WA's legislature, Tina Orwall, wants to introduce new legislation that will somehow "protect" these patients from a program that was doing fine without government interference for 30 years.

We have Normandy Park residents, who usually cry foul about big government, now demanding that government come in and regulate a successful business out of their hair. Free enterprise is being squashed even though mentally ill patients are finding ways to get help without tax payer assistance.

The interview this reporter gave to King 5 makes me sick. One commenter who saw it asked if these mentally ill people can easily "escape!" This is their home, for goodness sake, and they can come and go as they please.

So, I am angry at Democratic legislator Orwall for trying to over-regulate a program that does not cost us any money. I am impressed with Liz Browning for taking ownership of her son's needs and finding a way to turn a profit while helping others (when is making a profit a sin?)

manthou — August 1, 2012 at 5:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"""Why go out of your way to address/demean another poster with something you don't understand?"""

My apology to you as I did not recognize it as demeaning another poster, Nailingit. Labels bother the heck out of me, ya know. I was aware you were addressing Frobert, but I had to ask out of pure curiosity. I appreciate you explaining further, though.

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 6:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — August 1, 2012 at 5:46 p.m.

My philosophy as a Libertarian is more or less live and let live. It makes no difference to me what my neighbors do. I don't care what my neighbors do, if they have two wives or husbands, if they are married to another man, if they smoke pot or even shoot heroin, if it doesn't effect me it is none of my business. It is not the government's job to protect from a potential threat only an actual one.

Republican's as of late have become just as much about government control as democrats, just with a different agenda. Libertarians(on the conservative end) or the green party(on the liberal end) are much more aware and caring when it comes to individual liberties. With the wars the Patriot act, NDAA, and a slew of other legislation from these two parties, I personally have no idea why they still have ardent followers. Whether you join my party or not, take your blinders off and come into the light.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 6:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 1, 2012 at 5:14 p.m.

Was that a feeble attempt to rebut my argument?

If it was, you failed and it deserves no further response.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 6:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


For anyone in precinct 290, please vote for Zoe Fairbrother, for republican precinct officer, her youthful views and others like her could be what saves the republican party from themselves. Plus she makes a mean lasagna.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 7:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Is Zoe someone you know well and raised, frobert? I am glad that young people care enough to get involved. Blue hairs, move over. :)

I appreciate the feedback about the Normandy Park thing. I agree about live and let live when it comes to my neighbors. This is one reason why we moved to Vancouver. I think that feeling of acceptance is more prevalent here.

I never liked it when people starting messing with the constitution with an array of amendments, either.

Punishing a successful business that runs on the Oxford House model (they are everywhere, everywhere), punishing the initiative of a heartbroken, but hopeful mother who did not sit around wringing her hands, marginalizing people trying to overcome mental health problems and addiction: it absolutely fries me.

I cannot post the King 5 link and I have tried numerous times. My post won't show.

manthou — August 1, 2012 at 7:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


No Facebook account? Then we are deemed "suspicious" by authorities. :)

[link text][1]

[1]: http://ttp://www.itwire.com/your-it-news/home-it/55986#

manthou — August 1, 2012 at 7:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — August 1, 2012 at 7:39 p.m.

Yes, she is someone I raised whose middle name is Genevieve. She is a great kid, and wants to bring the republican party back to its roots from the inside.

frobert — August 1, 2012 at 7:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I consider the auto bail out a matter of blame because I am a firm believer that the government should not have been involved. In a free market society, sometimes businesses fail. And sometimes these could be large and long running businesses. Yes there are detrimental affects when such a thing happens.

But by bailing them out, they now have an assurance. They can take risks that are far outside of reason. If things don't go well, then good ole US (read taxpayer) is there to step in. This is a dangerous precedent.

And the stimulous? A trillion dollars to help the economy? Yes, things are improving, but oh so slowly. I do believe this could have happened without the government injection.
Before you ask, I don't have proof to back this up. We didn't have the opportunity to try so there is no substantiating data.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 8:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Regarding a study of the prevalence of welfare fraud, I present this hypothosis-

No study has been done because anytime such a study could be proposed, it is suppressed as an attack on the poor. No one seems to be willing to take on such a lable, even if such an accusation is unwarranted.

If anyone on here doubts the widespread problem of the fraud, I contend that you have not spent much time engaging in conversation with people who have recieved this assistance for an extended period of time. (and I am not referring to this recent recession timeline either)

I have stated before fraud cases I have been witness to, as well as potential cases that I believe would warrant an investigation. Unfortunately, I do not appear to be a credible witness in the eyes of many.

Afterall, I am just a right wing talking point, right?

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 8:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou- Frustrating! I had the links with thoughtful commentary...twice! (to include an amen :), it not only wouldn't post, but deleted everything!

Now I'm paranoid!

It sounds as though (to keep with patient confidentiality) honest communication, from both sides is key.

I hope this festering wound receives healing. It could bring a close community even closer if given the chance.

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 8:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- *No study has been done because anytime such a study could be proposed, it is suppressed as an attack on the poor.*

When has that ever stopped a right wing attack machine. Look at this ridiculous birtherism movement. It's seen as racist and batcrapcrazy but seems stronger than ever.

By the way, do believe President Barack Obama is a legitimate president as well as a natural born citizen of the United States? An earlier post of yours made me wonder.....

*If anyone on here doubts the widespread problem of the fraud, I contend that you have not spent much time engaging in conversation with people who have recieved this assistance for an extended period of time.*

I have not. Although you might reconsider speaking to a minority of people (no rw pun intended:) as causation to form a sweeping opinion.

*Unfortunately, I do not appear to be a credible witness in the eyes of many.*

Perhaps they don't see the reasonable side of you like we do! :)))

*Afterall, I am just a right wing talking point, right?*

You could further credibility by not playing the pity card DBW, it does get old. Buck up soldier!

Just sayin'...

I spout left wing talking points on a regular basis. What's wrong with that?

And labeling isn't all together a bad thing either. You and a few others label yourselves as Humanists, Christians, Christian Humanists, Republicans, Conservatives etc.

Personally, I'm a left wing bleeding heart liberal progressive with Utopian leanings! :)

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 8:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*And the stimulous? A trillion dollars to help the economy? Yes, things are improving, but oh so slowly. I do believe this could have happened without the government injection. Before you ask, I don't have proof to back this up. We didn't have the opportunity to try so there is no substantiating data.*

I won't ask for proof of something that in your mind did not take place. (we were experiencing the lack of government intervention while it was taking place!!!) But isn't the lack of gov oversight/regulations/greed cause this? But please, lend me your opinion as to how this vein of thinking resides within you. Some ideas, thoughts, scenarios to support your thinking. I'd be interested in hearing them.

And keep in mind, 40% of the stimulus funds were tax cuts.

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 9:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie- My apology to you as I did not recognize it as demeaning another poster, Nailingit. Labels bother the heck out of me, ya know. I was aware you were addressing Frobert, but I had to ask out of pure curiosity. I appreciate you explaining further, though.

goldenoldie — August 1, 2012 at 6:11 p.m.

Apology accepted. Go and sin no more!

As I addressed this issue of labeling with DBW, what's wrong with a label?

Given that people, politics, and life are overly complicated for accurately individualized informed labeling, sometimes it provides an overall look into a mindful consensus of individual thinking.

But hey, that's my opinion.

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 9:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal



While I will not say labels are bad, but when they get to be used as a slur, then it is wrong.

And please do not think of me using a pity card, my intention is more sarcasm.

And as far as the birther conspiracy, I personally gave up on that long ago. At this point, it doesn't even matter. I find it appalling that others, some of whom I support, feel the need to waste resources on it. Even if turned out that the President doesn't meet the qualifications, would that invalidate everything that has been passed and enacted during his term? (I suppose that would be a way to redo the ACA, and get it done the right way)

Regarding the minority of people, I have posted before that I will concede that a most people recieving assistance have a valid claim. Fraud does happen, I am sure we can all agree on that. Now let us suppose that we face an average of .25% of cases in each county are fraud. Can anyone calculate the figure on how much is being fraudulently collected statewide? Again, perhaps a drop in the bucket, but savings are savings.

I find it amazing that everyone wants to cite the fourth ammendment when it comes to drug testing for assistance. Private companies can test you to get hired. If you have an incident at work, you can be tested, if you refuse or test positive, you can be denied workers comp benefits for time lost.
My job requires not just a test to get hired, but also periodic testing. I provide a sample at the least once every three months. I have to do this to earn the income I use to pay taxes that provide this assistance. I have not yet heard a valid argument that says we should not test for recieving benefits. As I said, if you are recieving PUBLIC assistance, then the public has a right to ensure it is not being used for illegal substances.

And I don't see the importance of pointing out that a majority of positive results were for marijuana. Until it changes, it is an illegal drug. Pointing out what was found in the positive results does nothing to further the argument in either direction.

danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 1:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou — August 1, 2012 at 5:46 p.m.

It isn't a Libertarian issue; it is an obnoxious person who hasn't thought through their actions.

Your argument is sorta like the story behind the votes on the Civil Rights Act of 1964; where the Republicans hold high and mighty about how many Democrats (southern) voted against it.

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 6:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 1, 2012 at 6:30 p.m.

Nice to see your retort covers absolutely nothing factual.

Of course, there's nothing new about that as your modus operandi.

It is STILL your job to show us how the party platform hasn't changed.

But the really important bit is that is just one in a string of unsupported claims that you choose to not explain your thinking on.

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 6:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"... free market society,... "

danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 8:24 p.m.

After you define it, tell us when there was one.

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 6:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal



danabwoodley — August 1, 2012 at 8:32 p.m. (

Oh, yeah, that's a viable hypothesis;

If you could show us a single example.

If you could show us how whatever group it is that is doing that has that kind of power.

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 6:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 6:25 a.m.

It's up to me to prove that something *hasn't* changed? Please walk us through how that makes sense. You are the one making the claim that the republicans are no longer republicans Also, I never claimed they never changed, just that they retained most of the same views.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 6:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**"""Apology accepted. Go and sin no more!*

*As I addressed this issue of labeling with DBW, what's wrong with a label*?*

*Given that people, politics, and life are overly complicated for accurately individualized informed labeling, sometimes it provides an overall look into a mindful consensus of individual thinking.**

*But hey, that's my opinion."""**

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 9:48 p.m.

Amen to that!!! Thanks for being patient with me, nailingit. Your explanation answers my question and that's all that I was after with the intention of curiosity as to why people have to put a label on everything it seems. Guess we all learn something every day, huh!

With the wonders of internet and the pressing of a keyboard letter or punctuation mark, a person's curiosity can be misconstrued as a personal attack which isn't always the case. Yesterday was one of those moments.

Enjoy your day, nail!

goldenoldie — August 2, 2012 at 7:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Another sad day in DC-

"The House Armed Services Committee on Wednesday held a hearing to discuss how the Obama administration will direct federal agencies to plan for the cuts.

Some of the hearing stayed on point, but the rest devolved into a blame game.

First there was back-and-forth on who is to blame for the sequester in the first place. Then it switched to which party is to blame for holding up a Bush tax cut extension. And then finally conversation turned to who was to blame for turning the hearing on a very bipartisan issue into a partisan food fight.

It was, in short, a microcosm of the endless back-and-forth that's been going on for more than a year in Congress."

oh well, there's always next year......

mrd — August 2, 2012 at 7:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd...

For more than a year in Congress???

How about more than a decade???

You're right. There's always next year!!!

goldenoldie — August 2, 2012 at 7:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


What group has that kind of power?

What group is hawking the conservative "war on women"?

Go ahead and ask for the source. How about you give me a source to disprove it.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 7:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*It's up to me to prove that something hasn't changed?*
frobert — August 2, 2012 at 6:55 a.m.

Yes, because that was your claim; That the Republican Party hasn't "changed much" based on the 1856 Party Platform.

A platform we had to provide links to a readable version of.

And since your claim is unsupported, it is "up to me to prove that something hasn't changed". Something you have continued to refuse to do.

Do you want the full list of stuff you've recently claimed and left unsupported?

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 7:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*How about you give me a source to disprove it.*
danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 7:25 a.m.

#Using Evidence

"Like a lawyer in a jury trial, a writer must convince her audience of the validity of her argument by using evidence effectively. As a writer, you must also use evidence to persuade your readers to accept your claims. But how do you use evidence to your advantage? By leading your reader through your reasoning." http://www.indiana.edu/~wts/pamphlets/using_evidence.shtml

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 8 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- "I have not yet heard a valid argument that says we should not test for recieving benefits."

Then I take it you don't read my posts?
That cuts me deep, man. ;^)

Drift — August 2, 2012 at 8:08 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 7:52 a.m.

My evidence is clear, factual and well supported, you have provided none for your view. You are the one with the extraordinary claim that republicans are not republicans, it is up to you to provide extraordinary evidence.

Now, on to your unsupported claim that a Libertarian President can't change drug scheduling without legislative approval. I am still waiting for evidence of this common democrat lie.

Do you really believe these unsupported and outrageous myths, just because they come from the democratic party?

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 8:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"*Now let us suppose that we face an average of .25% of cases in each county are fraud.* "

You have spent days not being able to bring a single fact to support your assertion.

Now we get a number pulled out of, at best, thin air.

And that is after an attempt to claim data is being hidden by some unknown 'powerful group'.

I'm starting to get a J. McCarthy " I have here in my hand a list of 205..." vibe.....

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 8:32 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*My evidence is clear, factual and well supported,...*

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 8:19 a.m.

Where did you present your "evidence"? I remember yesterday's jpg of one party platform.

Where did you pull up and cite wording from it and from the 2008 (or other year of your choice, I linked to them all) to show us the comparison?

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 8:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal



frobert — August 2, 2012 at 8:19 a.m.

If you are going to make claims about my stated positions, you'd best be quoting.

Not just make claims about what you claim my positions are.

So, go back and find the evidence.

Not that I'm really expecting that sort of honesty from you. You've demonstrated a severe lack of that in refusing to support your claims.

And that includes now claiming you've provided evidence.

And you expect us to read you as a reliable voice for Libertarianism?

And you expect us to follow your voting recommendations?
And

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 8:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal



mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 8:35 a.m.

I actually brought up two very important planks in the platform that remained basically unchanged, "states rights" and "opposed to extravagant excesses in government". You made a feeble attempt to counter with commerce and redirected, pointing out that both the 1856 and 2008 platforms proposed reasonable spending on transportation infrastructure (rail in 1856 and highway in 2008).

You still have not brought up any argument to support your extraordinary claim that republicans are not republicans. Your best attempt was a "straw man" fallacy.

Now, on to your myth that a President cannot change drug scheduling without legislative approval.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Sorry should have read "I redirected"

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 8:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*I have not yet heard a valid argument that says we should not test for recieving benefits.*
danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 1:32 a.m.

"Of all possible options, why choose the poor? It would seem more reasonable to subject educational grants and loans to such standards! Or defense contractors, who make billions and are given license to kill in foreign countries. Or perhaps we should test lawmakers and judges and other public officials who govern our daily lives (laws requiring this have been struck down). Or, for that matter, why not test every American citizen? In some sense we all “benefit” from living in this society, whether financially or socially. Of all possible options, there seems no compelling reason to pick the poor. We could find drug users in many pools of the population. Requiring an entire group to be tested necessitates more than just an argument from use."

http://rationallyspeaking.blogspot.com/2011/06/drug-testing-for-welfare.html

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 8:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*I actually brought up two very important planks in the platform that remained basically unchanged,...*

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 8:48 a.m.

No, you made the claims. And then blustered that you'd 'proven' them.

With no evidence......

But that's ok. We know what your word is worth.

Now, show us where you read "republicans are not republicans." in my posts.

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 9:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 8:55 a.m.

I'm surprised you haven't figured this out yet, we look for the problems to solve and we always come up with the wrong answers. It is not the economy, under regulation or even sub prime mortgages. Our real problem is the poor, they leech off of every person of worth in our society.

To solve this problem plaguing our civilization, I propose that we start by converting decommissioned missile silos to house the poor. Sure they will whine but when they start starving in earnest, the cries will subside. Yes there will be some that prove their moral deficit by consuming the flesh of others and we will have to finish them off using surplus nerve gas or target practice for the military.

Then, when this scourge on society is irradiated, we can go on to be a thriving nation once again.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 9:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 2, 2012 at 9:10 a.m.

#A Modest Proposal


For Preventing The Children of Poor People in Ireland
From Being Aburden to Their Parents or Country, and
For Making Them Beneficial to The Public

By Jonathan Swift (1729)

It is a melancholy object to those who walk through this great town or travel in the country, when they see the streets, the roads, and cabin doors, crowded with beggars of the female sex, followed by three, four, or six children, all in rags and importuning every passenger for an alms. These mothers, instead of being able to work for their honest livelihood, are forced to employ all their time in strolling to beg sustenance for their helpless infants: who as they grow up either turn thieves for want of work, or leave their dear native country to fight for the Pretender in Spain, or sell themselves to the Barbadoes.

I think it is agreed by all parties that this prodigious number of children in the arms, or on the backs, or at the heels of their mothers, and frequently of their fathers, is in the present deplorable state of the kingdom a very great additional grievance; and, therefore, whoever could find out a fair, cheap, and easy method of making these children sound, useful members of the commonwealth, would deserve so well of the public as to have his statue set up for a preserver of the nation.

But my intention is very far from being confined to provide only for the children of professed beggars; it is of a much greater extent, and shall take in the whole number of infants at a certain age who are born of parents in effect as little able to support them as those who demand our charity in the streets.

....

I shall now therefore humbly propose my own thoughts, which I hope will not be liable to the least objection.

I have been assured by a very knowing American of my acquaintance in London, that a young healthy child well nursed is at a year old a most delicious, nourishing, and wholesome food, whether stewed, roasted, baked, or boiled; and I make no doubt that it will equally serve in a fricassee or a ragout.

http://archive.org/details/amodestproposal19508gut

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 9:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — August 2, 2012 at 9:12 a.m.

Florida is currently under injunction, because drug testing applicants is a violation of the fourth amendment. Why is it that people will get quite vocal when it comes to protecting their first or second amendment rights and then call for denying someone else's fourth or fifth amendment rights? The Constitution if for everybody and if we allow it to ignored for some, then it can be ignored or all.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 9:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 9:21 a.m.

Now that you point that out, I read it in freshman comp 30 some years ago. Although I did not knowingly base my satire on this piece, it is most likely where I got the foundation.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 9:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Christian Leaders Blast GOP Tax Bill**

"To roll back tax credits for the poor to help fund tax breaks for the rich is simply morally reprehensible," said the Rev. Jim Wallis, president and CEO of the social justice organization Sojourners, who called the federal budget a "moral document" that should transcend party politics.

Beckmann added many working families rely on tax credits for necessities like food and shelter.

"The food budget is usually the first thing families cut when times get tough, but tax credits like the EITC and CTC help struggling families put food on the table and make ends meet," he said.

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has also urged Congress to extend tax credits for the poor.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/christian-leaders-blast-gop-tax-bill_n_1730884.html#s308815&title;=Luke_62021

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 10:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


The Olympics have been exceptional this year. (in spite of poor edited NBC coverage)

And speaking of edited coverage, Women's Beach Volleyball is currently on!

Go USA!

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 10:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — August 2, 2012 at 10:01 a.m.

I don't recall ever posting anything about talking points, you must have me confused with some of the liberals on this site. If you want to be a conservative you need to understand limited constitutional government. Conservatism is based on limited government following the constitution, the government ignoring the fourth to drug test anyone is not conservative.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 10:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- *I have not yet heard a valid argument that says we should not test for recieving benefits.*

You need to look no further than your own arguments. i.e...............

*My problem is my small budget mentality.

For me, any savings is better than no savings at all. This means that I am angered by only one case of the system being abused.*

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:21 p.m.

Given that data supports welfare drug testing wastes taxpayer $$$, and this seems to be a case of "one case of the system being abused" by doing so, how does this square with your I value every penny. mentality?

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 12:20 a.m.

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 11:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Crazy - "Isn't that exactly what is going on anyway with drug testing to hold a job?"

That doesn't mean it's ethical. And truth be told, the only reason most employers test is due to coercion by the federal government.

I get drug tested, by the way. I've a narco contract with the V.A. I pop extremely high for THC metabolite every time. My reliance on narcotics has dropped >30% since I started administering cannabis. My doc has suggested I maintain my current regime. Don't tell Merck, okay?

For the most part, drug testing catches recreational cannabis users. Hard core dopers can clean-up in 72 hours. It's the hard cores who walk out with company property in their lunch box, not an individual who enjoys a spliff now and again. So just exactly what does testing achieve?

Oh, and I was the safety director of a small industrial firm for years. I wrote the whole program. I *do* know what I'm writing of.

Your friendly neighborhood drug addict, Drift.

Drift — August 2, 2012 at 11:19 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 2, 2012 at 10:49 a.m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_c...

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 11:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 11:44 a.m.

You should know by now that in my opinion "social conservatives" are in no way conservative. I think they would be better described as librocons, they don't care how much they have to expand government to push their misguided agenda.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at noon ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 2, 2012 at noon

Creating words and redefining.....

The point is that under the 'Conservative' moniker there is a large base of Social Conservatives or Conservatism.

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 12:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 12:17 p.m.

From your source.
"There is no necessary link between social and fiscal conservatism"
"Social conservatism is seen as a form of authoritarianism, in contrast with traditionalist conservatism"

I am not redefining I am just pointing out that "social conservatives" are neither social or conservatives.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — August 2, 2012 at 1:03 p.m.

The government should not be checking anybody's blood, urine, breath or anything else except upon probable cause with a warrant issued by a judge in good standing, supported by witnesses under oath or affirmation.

Our government is out of control and allowing them more leeway to violate rights is the last thing we should be doing.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 1:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift @ 11:19- AMEN!

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 1:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


crazytrain — August 2, 2012 at 1:25 p.m.

Chick-fil-A can say anything they want, refer to the first amendment, the mayor can say anything he wants for the same reason. Now if the mayor uses government resources to stifle free speech, he should be prosecuted, although it is criminal, I don't believe it has ever been prosecuted, it is usually a civil judgment.

The bill of rights must apply equally for all, I support freedom of speech for all groups whether I agree with what they are saying or not. Westboro baptist, Nazi or the klan all have a right to freedom of speech, groups of persons such as unions and corporations have freedom of speech also. There should be no question on this issue.

note for Basil: 18usc section 242 violation of constitutional rights under color of law.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 2:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Now, show us where you read "republicans are not republicans." in my posts.

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 9:07 a.m.

Of course, back in the day, the Republican Party wasn't your grandfather's Republican Party.

mr_basil_seal — July 5, 2012 at 12:38 p.m.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 2:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Ludicrous Times Op-Ed Forgets Entire Year of Wall Street History**

How the Wall Street Journal can bring up the LIBOR scandal – both a textbook case of antitrust crime and more or less the ultimate example of insider trading, with banks trading against their own secret, non-disclosed manipulations of interest rates – and lump it in with things that supposedly "aren't crimes" is beyond mind-boggling. People can and do go to jail in America for smoking marijuana or selling food stamps for rent money, but apparently it reeks of Stalinism to even suggest that even one person should go to jail for manipulating an $800 trillion market. Moreover Weill, far from simply being one of the last people on earth to admit the obvious truth about Too-Big-To-Fail banks, has instead just crossed over into the Stalinist camp.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/ludicrous-times-op-ed-forgets-entire-year-of-wall-street-history-20120801#ixzz22Qg1ofsR

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 3:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 3:11 p.m.

Rolling stone was so much better when they had P.J. O'Rourke.

That being said, the government should not be bailing out banks or any business for that matter. If a business is mismanaged badly enough, they have to be allowed to fail. When the government steps in and overrides the free market consequences for mismanagement, they upset the whole balance of our economy. It is also unconscionable that taxpayers lost their homes, yet were forced to pay for preserving the fortunes of people like Warren Buffett and T. Boone Pickens.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 3:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


By the way...The House begins a 5 week vacation today!!! Does Jaime Herrera-somethingorother have any town halls scheduled? Boehner and Co. the worst, hands down Congress in modern American history.

---

**Mitt Romney Tax Plan Helps The Rich The Most: Analysis**

WASHINGTON, Aug 1 (Reuters) - Republican U.S. presidential challenger Mitt Romney's proposal to slash individual income taxes by 20 percent across-the-board would primarily boost the income of the wealthiest taxpayers, according to a nonpartisan analysis released on Wednesday.

The report by the centrist Tax Policy Center found that Romney's tax cuts would boost after-tax income by an average of 4.1 percent for those earning more than $1 million a year, while reducing by an average of 1.2 percent the after-tax income of individuals earning less than $200,000.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/mitt-romney-tax-plan_n_1727909.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 3:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert- This too big to fail policy needs breaking up. Another aspect of the Obama admin I haven't agreed with. How do you manage the failings of Wall Street when they're the ones advising you? (I know, I know, you believe the Fed should stay out of it with zero regulations. That's where the divide becomes a Grand Canyon) The bailout was on Bushes & 12 years of Republican controlled Congress watch, which for the most part caused the problems to begin with.

I wonder how Rafalca is doing today?

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 3:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal



frobert — August 2, 2012 at 12:42 p.m.

Except for that pesky 'conservative in their group title...

And those pesky voting records.

And the 'using budget as a rationale for cutting services that social conservatives don't like' gambit.

But I can understand why you'd like to keep your distance from both titles.

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 3:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 2, 2012 at 2:58 p.m.

Ahhh, reading comprehension problems..... Got it.

Read the rest of the post

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 3:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal



My last captcha word was ejoyass! :))))))

Can captcha read avatars?

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 3:58 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Well this is just .. crAzy! "He simple said he stands by the Bible that says marriage is the union of one man, one woman. What is the big deal here about what he said?"

Hate filled conservatives love to coalesce. A record day for this fast food..joint.

One of this bigot's quotes...

"I think we are inviting God's judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, 'We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage,' and I pray God's mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we have the audacity to try to redefine what marriage is about," Cathy said in that interview,

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/dan-cathy-chick-fil-a-president-anti-gay_n_1680984.html

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 4:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 3:55 p.m.

The rest of the post is

"You know, like the 'Lincoln was a Republican' theme, attempting to put today's rw Republican's in a favorable light.

Attempting...."

You are still saying that Lincoln was not a republican, by today's standards. I still insist that argument is nonsensical and He would be much closer to the republicans of today than to the democrats.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Sad...truly sad when a young single father who stands up for his country...not once...not twice but THREE times to fight for the freedom of our nation in hopes to ensure a future for his little one... only to return as a homeless father, afraid of being stereotyped:

""*"After returning home, Archila said he probably should have sought VA help in dealing with some issues, but "I didn't want to be labeled."*"""

(This is an excerpt from a Columbian news article entitled "Community Steps up for Veterans.")

goldenoldie — August 2, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 4:07 p.m.

He has the right to say whatever he likes and you have the right to not frequent his establishment because of it(at least you did before National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius) so what is the problem?

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 4:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal



frobert — August 2, 2012 at 4:12 p.m.

Wow, the list of historians whose eyeballs just went in a big circle and rolling in their graves is pretty long.....

"Insist" all you want; but what you consider the 'proof' would be far more illuminating.

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 4:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


or, not "and"

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 4:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wV1Frq...

[WARNING TO CHRISTIAN CONSERVATIVES!] Video will cause unclean thoughts, brain meltdown, and possibly contribute to your ongoing spiritual erosion. Judge not?

Is Jimmy Swaggart still trolling the produce aisles?

No chic-fil-a, but a lot of .. chick fill A ..

Ya gotta love GAGA!

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 4:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert- Did I say there was a problem? It's also my right to disagree.

Hell "crAzy", I label myself. No blurring the lines this time!

Try not to take yourself so seriously. Chill a bit. It is inspiring, (if true) that you are hitting the books at your age.

Glad to give you a kick though!

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 4:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 4:20 p.m.

Can you point me to any respected historian that believes that the republicans and democrats essentially switched places?

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 4:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 2, 2012 at 4:39 p.m.

Here's your chance to shine; list you you would consider "respected historian(s)"

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 4:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


those who you, not "you you"

mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 5:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 4:49 p.m.

You are the one who made the statement

"Wow, the list of historians whose eyeballs just went in a big circle and rolling in their graves is pretty long....."

You should have a list of those historians.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 5:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


craZy.....Do I really have to post, once again, your admission to getting married in 1970, as well as your non-sensical reply when your history was brought to light? I don't wish to, as I like to see somewhat of a kind mellow spirit in the forum as well as an exchange of ideas. But I will if you like.

Just put aside your trolling insults. Although you've gotten much better recently, try not to slip back into your dark side.

If you can just accomplish that much, it will be somewhat humbling & rewarding.

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 5:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 5:38 p.m.

crazy answered that question weeks ago, you might want to invest in some Ginkgo biloba.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 5:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Yes frobert. You just put the exclamation mark in "non-sensical".

btw, you might want to check the benefits of ginko biloba. As with crazy, things aren't always as advertised.

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 5:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHy4_f...

Not to get hung up on the ginko thing, but this might help as well as being informative.

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 6 p.m. ( | suggest removal


crazy, that's just crazy. The same IP address? Really? You assume much!!! So much knowledge! So much info as to other users! If you're going to make something up, you should try a little harder. Usually you're better at blurring the lines than this. From your 'severely' conservative hate/insult postings, your demeanor hasn't changed, not even once.

crazytrain has become such a popular name!

You make zero sense.

Why it's just...crazy.....:)))))))))))))))) That's all right though. Keep on postin'....crazy!

If you want to keep discussing this we can start posting old writes of yours. Perhaps some just as telling as the post I'm referring to. You should let this, go while you're behind.

Tell ya what!!! Just keep on keepin' on... this gets boring as you achieve your outcome of distraction and attention getting. Huh!!! Or is it Huh??? Whatever crrrrazy. Have fun and behave yourself!!!

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 7:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal



mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 8 a.m

Not meaning to burst your bubble kind sir, but this isn't a class. I will refer to the resource when I write my next paper.

This is a public forum in which people may share opinions, and sometimes argue (human nature, right?). Sometimes, a person will not necessarily have facts or supporting evidence. And just like the early stages of research (hypothosis) assumptions get made (why I offered .25%).

While I am sure that you have a good intent, I am afraid you have a tendancy to come off as arrogant. I believe you would do well to sometimes offer an opinion of your own, and not just tearing apart others, or random posting of links to other peoples writing.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 8:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


And peace to you also crazy.

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 8:41 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 2, 2012 at 8:55 a.

Your quote on this particular post, reinforces an earlier statement I made. While the exact words are not used, it certainly refers to a "war on the poor"

I also make the assumption, based upon the quote, that any program that requires drug testing, only requires the poor to be tested.

So by extension, all military personnel are poor.
Apparently, so are professional athletes. And Olympic athletes.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 8:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 2, 2012 at 9:23 a.m.

Well I guess that this matter is subjective. I do not see this as a violation of the fourth ammendment. I see nothing unreasonable about it.

If I am wrong about this, that means I can sue the US Government, specifically the DoD, DA, and every commander I have served with for every time I have had to fill a cup with a urine sample to continue earning my income.

Many agencies, public and private, conduct testing as an assurance that people are not violating law and company policy. I do not believe the courts have ruled this to violate the constitution. If this particular issue is ruled unconstitutional, that invalidates every one of these testing policies, and everyone who has had to face consequences for a positive test must then recieve restitution for this great wrong that was committed against them.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 8:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — August 2, 2012 at 11:19 a.m

While I will not discuss my opinion regarding medical marijuana, I do need to address one point you attempted to make.

The point to testing for public assistance is to ensure it isn't being used for ILLEGAL drugs. Until the scheduling is changed, marijuana is ILLEGAL. So the argument discerning what drug is found in the test is invalid for this issue.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 9:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


We've finally tied China with 18 GOLDS! We're kickin' A! Gabby's doing her thing in gymnastics tonight in which she won a gold medal. On right now. These Olympics are exciting!

America rules!

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 9:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 2, 2012 at 2:12 p.m.

Fro-

You are absolutely correct. Everyone can address their view on any issue openly. That is the glory of the 1st ammendment. Even if the view is unpopular and vulgar to some (you cited some great examples).

BUT...(you knew it was coming)

There are cases when the speaker must be discerning when they express those views. My situation is an example.
While I can exercise my 1st ammendment rights, I must be aware of the whole picture. I cannot allow the perseption that I am stating an opinion as a representative of the organization to which I belong (being in the military).

For Mr. Emmanuel, his is more difficult, as the elected chief executive of the city, he must ensure that he is not presenting himself as the representative of the city as a whole. That is the heart of the backlash to his comments on CFA.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 9:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 8:57 p.m.

In the supreme court case Chandler v. Miller, the court struck down drug testing as a condition for candidates for public office. The 8 to 1 majority opinion stated that drug testing for "symbolic" reasons was unreasonable search. The court also acknowledged that special exceptions to this were allowable in cases of vital interest such as certain employees. I think the military would fall into this category. Welfare recipients would definitely not, especially considering the low numbers that tested positive.

It seems that by an 8 to 1 margin the Supreme Court agrees with my position.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 9:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The court also acknowledged that special exceptions to this were allowable in cases of vital interest

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 9:24 p.m.

OK, you got me there.

So you don't think it would be "vital interest" for the public to know that the funds given for public assistance are not being used for illegal uses?

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 9:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 9:42 p.m.

No, that would be strictly symbolic, the same as people knowing their elected leaders are not using drugs.

I would not be opposed to paying peoples bills and food and not giving them any cash, but to violate their rights is going too far.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 9:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


excerpt from the majority opinion Chandler v. Miller

" The Court emphasized that the proffered special need for drug testing must be substantial--important enough to override the individual's acknowledged privacy interest, sufficiently vital to suppress the Fourth Amendment's normal requirement of individualized suspicion.
The Court found that Georgia failed to show, in justification of Ga. Code Ann. § 21-2-140, a special need of that kind. Notably lacking in respondent officials' presentation was any indication of a concrete danger that demanded departure from the Fourth Amendment's main rule. The statute was not needed and could not work to ferret out lawbreakers, and officials barely attempted to support the statute on that ground. However well meant, the candidate drug test Georgia devised diminished personal privacy for a symbol's sake; state action that is prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. In addition to Georgia's failure to provide evidence of a drug problem among its state officials, the Court concluded that even if such a problem did exist, the affected officials would likely not perform the kind of high-risk, safety-sensitive tasks which might justify the statute's proposed incursion on their individual privacy rights. Where, as in this case, public safety was not genuinely jeopardized, the Fourth Amendment precluded a suspicionless search, no matter how conveniently arranged."

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 10:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Sorry that wasn't the excerpt that was the Wikipedia summary, but it still gets my point across.

Here is the opinion if you are interested

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/96-126.ZO.html

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 10:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"The point to testing for public assistance is to ensure it isn't being used for ILLEGAL drugs. Until the scheduling is changed, marijuana is ILLEGAL. So the argument discerning what drug is found in the test is invalid for this issue."

My whole point(s),DBW are these:

The way we deal drug with addiction in this country is an abomination. Frankly, I find it inhumane.

I find nothing whatsoever wrong with responsible recreational use of drugs. Nothing. Not a darned thing.

I never intended to make a differntiation between cannabis (a schedule I drug) and methamphetamine (schedule II) in my previous post. My intention was to point out how ludicrous the scheduling is.

And -

If an individual in our socialistic society (just 'cuz I said it doesn't mean I've offered an opionion) qualifies for assistance, applies and is granted, what does it matter to you, me, or the gal down the street what they do with those funds? If said individual buys cat food with it, Hershey bars or heroin... how is that relative to the lousy 200 bucks a month they draw?

DBW, if I didn't really, and I mean like really, need that monthly narco package from the V.A. I'd pour my next bottle of piss in the waiting room.

Get your head out of the box, woman. You are a woman, right? And you work the night shift. The night shift thing gives you the freedom to use government equipment to post opinion to some obscure newspaper forum.

On my dime?!

(uh, oh. i'm gonna get in trouble, huh?)

Drift — August 2, 2012 at 10:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- Care to take stab?

*And the stimulous? A trillion dollars to help the economy? Yes, things are improving, but oh so slowly. I do believe this could have happened without the government injection. Before you ask, I don't have proof to back this up. We didn't have the opportunity to try so there is no substantiating data.*

I won't ask for proof of something that in your mind did not take place. (we were experiencing the lack of government intervention while it was taking place!!!) But isn't the lack of gov oversight/regulations/greed cause this? But please, lend me your opinion as to how this vein of thinking resides within you. **Some ideas, thoughts, scenarios to support your thinking. I'd be interested in hearing them.**

And keep in mind, 40% of the stimulus funds were tax cuts.

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 9:12 p.m.

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 11 p.m

If as you contend the financial crisis was caused by greed(I am not in any way disagreeing with you on this) why did our government move to preserve the fortunes of the very people who's greed caused it? We bolstered the fortunes of people like Warren Buffett who held shares in many bailed out banks and AIG. If he was the cause shouldn't we have let him lose his fortune as the free market dictated? These billionaires were "bailed out" by people that were having their homes foreclosed by the very same people they bailed out.

frobert — August 2, 2012 at 11:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert- For the overall economy, the economy as a whole, with the dynamics involved and how it had already effected so many 401K's, to let our economy nosedive into the chasms of financial hell, cats and dogs living together, the lion eating the lamb.....I don't think so.

The most troubling thing seems to be it was not a lesson learned, from anybody to anyone about anything.

But what do I know? I still have problems operating a digital camera.

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 11:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal



nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 11:54 p.m.

It is absolutely disgusting that Buffett, Pickens and others petitioned the government to preserve their fortunes, and got bipartisan support for it. The people were against it but Bush, Obama, McCain and hundreds of others didn't care about the people losing their homes, they only cared about stocking their gravy train.

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 1:12 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — August 2, 2012 at 10:59 p.m.

Your are only going to get in trouble for a mistaken assumption. I know it is misleading by name, but no, I am not a woman.

Now while the other assumption is more logically based, it is also incorrect. I am not working a night shift. I am merely in a different time zone. (I will let you work that out).

Now the question is, why should it matter how a person uses the assistance they recieve? Well, the reason they qualified to recieve aid (I may be falsely assuming), is that they could not afford the necessities required for basic living (food and shelter).

If this person can manage to buy other things, do they really have the need? Now if those other things they are buying are ILLEGAL items (in this case drugs), then I see that as fraud, waste and abuse of public funds. In the military we can be charged and punished for such an offense.

But if it is acceptable for people on public assistance can indulge in illegal activities and not have to be held accountable, then no one will miss the crate of 40mm ammunition I am going to keep in my garage when I get home.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 1:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


It's 4 in the morning and I just figured out what RWTP means.

Right Wing Toilet Paper

I could be wrong though. I get sooo confused.

I'll go and have my coffee now. It's done brewing.

JohnCasey — August 3, 2012 at 4:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Either John is making a humorous comment, or he hasn't read previous posts (dating back at least 3 weeks).

OR......

He needs the coffee sent through an IV.

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 4:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/au...

Hey Fro-

Is this you?

If so, I jsut wanted to say that you make some very valid points. I applaud that you could articulate something so well in spite of it not being politically correct.

If it is not you, then sorry to waste everyone's time.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 4:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 11 p.m.

Perhaps the lack of government intervention did lead to the problems faced by businesses.

I will not advocate the repeal of all government regulation on business practices. There are lots of good policies in place, many of which look out for the safety of the consumer.

But honestly, many things took place leading up to the fall that could have been avoided not by government intervention, but by personal responsibility.
We have people being foreclosed on because they couldn't afford payments while being out of work. This is sad.
The problem actually started by lending companies giving loans to people who couldn't afford them in the first place. Since these people were unable to make the payments, the lenders weren't getting regular income and began to see the bottom line go down. This falls on lenders for writing the loans, and borrowers for overextending themselves. (Yes executive pay could be considered a contributing factor as well)

I know that real estate is not the only realm that was hit. Other business found themselves in trouble too. These businesses took risks, and they didn't pan out. That is part of what it means to run a business. The government doesn't need to be involve in the profitability of a private enterprise. I know greed is a problem with some of these executives, but is it really the government's issue when it involves a private business.

I will make the attempt to look over the passed law. And even if 40% was in tax breaks, what about the other 60%. Are we to applaud the success of Solyndra? Or how Fisker is producing the $100K electric car in Finnland? Or the tremendous success of the Chevy Volt?

I know that doesn't account for the entire 60%, but how much was put into those? Drop in the bucket?

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 4:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


goldenoldie — August 2, 2012 at 4:17 p.m.

Goldie-

I couldn't agree more. I am very personally familiar with several cases of varying degrees of disorders involving veterans. I may have talked of this before, but I will repeat in case that was on another forum:

DoD has made great strides in how it views mental health care for service members. There are several programs that encourage seeking help if it is needed. The problem, unfortunately, does not reside within the larger organization, but instead within individuals. The individuals that perpetuate the stigma often times hold leadership positions where they have influence over those who should seek the help of professionals.

Perhaps these are the ones that should be focused on when looking at the trends of self destructive behavior, up to and including suicide.

For those of you who have followed the case, look at the recent court martial of SGT Holcomb in the death of PVT Chen. While acquitted for the negligent homicide charge in PVT Chen's suicide (after all, SGT Holcomb did not pull the trigger), SGT Holcombs behavior did contribute to the mental state that the soldier was in. His attitude and actions were appalling. With luck, to go with the reduction in rank, he will also be barred from reenlistment so he may never again attain a leadership position.
He also claims a possible mental disorder as a part of his defense, which he admits he also has not sought out assistance for. (I will question the claim considering its timing, but that is another issue).

Now if the soldier you posted about lost his home as a result (3rd or 4th order I would assume) of not seeking help, he must personally shoulder some (if not most) of the blame. But I do understand completely the power of the stigma.

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 5:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


IV is much quicker. JMO

JohnCasey — August 3, 2012 at 5:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 2, 2012 at 9:10 a.m

It took me a while, but re-reading this post reminded me of some research I had done a while back.

Similar measures were taken in the 15th century in the principality of Wallachia, a portion of modern day Romania. It is said that the ruling Voivode (prince) had gathered the poor, homeless, sick, and any other that relied on public assistance for living necessities into one of his residences.
As an act of kindness, he provided them with a very lavish meal, heavy on wine. There was much music, and dancing. A great time was had by all.

As the evening wore on, he had his soldiers board up the place, trapping everyone inside. They torched it with everyone screaming.

The Voivode in question has a few names he is historically called: Vladmit Tepec, Vlad the Impaler, or Dracula.

I am sure we can all agree that this form of social welfare reform is not an acceptable alternative.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 6:30 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*public forum in which people may share opinions,*
danabwoodley — August 2, 2012 at 8:27 p.m.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, but they are not entitled to their own facts.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Opinions

Opinions are different from facts. An opinion is a conclusion reached by someone after looking at the facts. Opinions are based on what people believe to be facts. This can include probable facts and even probable lies, although few people will knowingly give an opinion based on a proven lie.

http://www.thenewsmanual.net/Manuals%20Volume%203/volume3_56.htm

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 6:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 4:18 a.m.

No that is not me, although I feel the ban on smoking in parks is absolutely ridiculous They won't let people smoke inside and now they won't let people smoke outside. I am sure someone will write in and tell me how offensive the smoke is outside where it dissipates almost instantly.

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 6:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal



*Solyndra
Fisker
Chevy Volt?
RWTP*

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 4:42 a.m.

JohnCasey at 4:05 a.m. got it right....

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 7:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 6:36 a.m.

I have to disagree with your source, almost everyone will knowingly base an opinion on a proven lie, look at "weapons of mass destruction"

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 7:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I am curious about one thing, I will try to remember to look it up, but I also want to ask if anyone here knows.

Has anyone challenged the constitutionality on the smoking ban in public places? In government buildings, got it, perfectly legal ban. But in private businesses? Doesn't this infringe on the owners right to choose how to run his business?

I once worked at a restaraunt in Hazel Dell that also had a bar. Everything was legal, hiring practices, employee relations, liquor liscense and all. The sign out front very clearly stated that the entire place was a designated smoking environment. This gave the consumer a choice to continue on in for a meal or drink, or turn around and find somewhere else.

Why can't we let people exercise the right to choose? Both the business owner and the consumer?

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 7:07 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 7:06 a.m.

Quick jab, but no counterpoint.

Think I hit something you cannot counter.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 7:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal



danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 7:07 a.m.

I can't find any case reviewed by SCOTUS, but every state court that has reviewed it seems to have upheld that smoking bans on private property are "compelling state interest". Nevada ruled that their criminal sanctions were unconstitutionally vague.

My opinion
The Supreme Court of the United States generally gives states wide latitude when it comes to violating individual property rights. It seems to me that a business could file suit based on lost revenue, under eminent domain, but other than that I don't see the SCOTUS even reviewing the matter.

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 7:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Not sure about why the argument over Crazy Train persists, but here's my input. Maybe that's Ozzie reincarnated; he's been looking pretty dead on his feet the past few years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YMD_L8...

Hey, Nails - We had someone else here who used to push Gaga as being a great artist. And his style was vaguely similar to yours. Whatever happened to Alleycat?

roger — August 3, 2012 at 7:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


SuperPac money comes from a very small number of people:

[link text][1]

[1]: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/08/super-pac-dark-money-charts-sheldon-adelson-demos

manthou — August 3, 2012 at 7:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- Your revised handle of RWTP could not be more spot on. Where do you get the bulk of your news information? Hmmmm....a wild stab here but I'm guessing Fox.

The same Chevy Volt that was Motor Trend's Car of the Year? The same Volt in which the idea and much production work took place while Obama was a US Senator? You should get dialed in a bit. It seems as though you admit (@ 4:42) your "stimulus didn't work" talk was ridiculous. Agreed.

Try cluing in to a different news source. You do know those who depend on Fox News are less informed than folks who watch no news at all...don't you?

Motor Trends Car of the Year thrown in the 60% column?? :)) Solyndra?

The stimulus hedged jobs loss, helped small businesses, shored up local economies...

Your talking points are likened to a poorly done version of a Hannity show. BTW your post @ 6:30 is beyond the impaled. Anything to take a cheap unwarranted shot at your version of modern day socialism.

It boils down to you pushing an extreme one sided Conservative "Socialist" agenda.

Against gays and abortion, for all, at any cost, to include rational thought/reasoning in the 21st century.

Assuming you vote.....never mind, the tea flavored Kool-aid has taken you over.

If propaganda was a drug you'd never pass a piss test.

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 7:53 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Think I hit something you cannot counter.
RWTP*

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 7:10 a.m.

Bluster, without facts.

Maybe you should try something other than RWTP as defined by JohnCasey at 4:05 a.m.

http://lpo.energy.gov/

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 7:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- I don't know what happened to the cat beyond him getting canned from this site. I remember he posted afterward and was removed faster than a Faux news misstep. I miss his input though. I don't know how his style was similar to mine, other than we agreed more than half the time.

Cat! Where are you dude?

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 7:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


#The GOP Economy and Scorched-Earth Obstructionism

by Paul Krugman
There has been plenty to criticize about President Obama’s handling of the economy. Yet the overriding story of the past few years is not Mr. Obama’s mistakes but the scorched-earth opposition of Republicans, who have done everything they can to get in his way — and who now, having blocked the president’s policies, hope to win the White House by claiming that his policies have failed.
House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA) (L) and House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-WI) (R) listen to Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) as they hold a brief news media availability after a Republican Conference meeting at the U.S. Capitol March 27, 2012 in Washington, DC. (March 26, 2012 - Source: Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America)

And this week’s shocking refusal to implement debt relief by the acting director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency — a Bush-era holdover the president hasn’t been able to replace — illustrates perfectly what’s going on.

Some background: many economists believe that the overhang of excess household debt, a legacy of the bubble years, is the biggest factor holding back economic recovery. Loosely speaking, excess debt has created a situation in which everyone is trying to spend less than their income. Since this is collectively impossible — my spending is your income, and your spending is my income — the result is a persistently depressed economy.

How should policy respond? One answer is government spending to support the economy while the private sector repairs its balance sheets; now is not the time for austerity, and cuts in government purchases have been a major economic drag. Another answer is aggressive monetary policy, which is why the Federal Reserve’s refusal to act in the face of high unemployment and below-target inflation is a scandal. http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/03

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 8:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Re: the smoking ban. If we're going to ban one offensive behavior in public, then we need to work on the others too.

For starters, quit taking your dogs to crowded public places like the Vancouver Farmers Market. It's a major irritant to have your dog suddenly decide to cut in front of me to check out an interesting smell.

Control your kids, or leave them at home. I'm not looking for perfection here; the only way they'll learn proper behavior is to go out into public. But when you let them roam unchecked, they're a public nuisance.

The Tour de France does NOT run through Farmers Market - bicyclists don't belong there. And as much as they complain about car drivers not sharing the road with them, why can't they see a need to safely share walkways like along the riverfront with pedestrians?

Back when we had REAL cars, a lot of places passed laws against glasspack mufflers (I got a couple of tickets for mine). Now that I'm older and less tolerant, I'd like to see laws against them being put on Bubba trucks and dinky little Japanese imports. They're offensive (except when on a proper car, of course).

Is it really necessary to walk down the middle of the supermarket aisle discussing every purchase, and who knows what else, on your cell?

Feel free to add to this list. Maybe we can have a perfect world yet!

(Oh - don't forget argumentative comments on internet discussion websites. Or maybe this should be left off - we might have to meet face to face.)

roger — August 3, 2012 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Decent Jobs report for July. If local governments weren't killing jobs it would be much better.

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 8:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


#Scientists Tell Senate Panel: Climate Change Is Here and Disaster Costs Will Be Huge

Climate scientists who appeared Wednesday morning before a Senate committee hearing on climate change and extreme weather impacts had stark warnings for the lawmakers: climate change is here, climate change is man-made, and climate change is going to cost us big time.

Oklahoma senator Jim Inhofe, a prominent climate sceptic, told the committe: 'The global warming movement has collapsed.'

Dr. James McCarthy, professor at Harvard University and lead author of several climate impact studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and other international papers, told the committee that there is "widespread agreement among specialists who devote their careers" to monitoring key indicators of global warming.

He acknowledged that, of course, climates fluctuate on a yearly basis, but that the mounting evidence of a warming world was changing the baseline of those fluctuations.

"In the future," he said, as greenhouse gases continue to increase, natural events like El Nino cycles, "Will wreak even more havoc as they break old records for warm and wet conditions across much of the globe, because they will be occurring upon a higher baseline of warming."

His IPCC colleague and climate scientist at Stanford University Dr. Christopher Fields, said that these events will have an increasingly strong impact on communities.

"Understanding the role of climate change in the risk of extremes is one of the most active areas of climate science," he said. "As a result of rapid progress over the last few years, it is now feasible to quantify the way that climate change alters the risk of certain events or series of events."

Giving examples, and citing studies to back them up, he continued:

"Climate change at least doubled the risk of the European heat wave of 2003, a high-impact extreme that led to tens of thousands of premature deaths, especially among the elderly or infirm. On the other hand, there is no evidence that climate change played a role in the serious flooding in Thailand in 2011. The primary causal agent there was altered land management. For the 2011 Texas drought, La Niña (cold water in the eastern Pacific) played a role, but recent research by David Rupp and colleagues concludes that, in a La Niña period, extreme heat is now 20 times more likely than in the 1960s."
"There is no doubt that climate has changed," Fields said. "There is also no doubt that a changing climate changes the risks of extremes, including extremes that can lead to disaster."

Despite the evidence presented, however, Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma was unwavering in his denial of the scientific communities findings. In his prepared opening remarks, Inhofe said: "The global warming movement has completely collapsed." http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/01-4

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 8:05 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- The kid's got some chops! He should hire a singer though! :)

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 8:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 8:05 a.m.

It is funny how your article doesn't include opinions from those respected scientists that testified on the other side of this issue. I guess that is what global warming alarmists do, refuse to knowledge any scientist with a different viewpoint, and then claim to have a consensus.

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 8:26 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 7:53 a.m

I actually do have many resources for my news. I don't actually go to every location and switch to every network. I utilize the Early Bird. While I don't get to puruse on a daily basis, I check it as often as possible.

I would like to add that the conditions that merit a source as credible is exclusively the opinion of the consumer.

The stimulous hedged job loss? Is that the measurement I have heard referred to as "jobs saved"? I would like to see the method used to determine that a job was "saved" and what set the conditions for the rescue.

If you are including the case of Solyndra as a success story, I surely am concerned as to what you would consider a failure.

My post at 0630 was in no way a shot at anyone. I was citing a historical example on par with the parody (I assume) that fro posted. I guess I was not clear in stating that such a solution was horrifying and unconscionable.

Against gays? True, as a Christian I see homosexual acts as wrong. But Christ also taught to hate the sin and not the sinner. I am fully in favor of exercising their choice in their sexuality.

Against abortion? Yes. I see it as murder. It is unbelievably used as a birth control device, and that I find appalling.

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 8:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal


cont.

Yes I vote, I will be sending my primary ballot momentarily. And honestly, I am not much of a tea drinker, and really not a big fan of Kool-aid either.

Don't raise the issue of propaganda please. You know as well as I do it is used by both sides. I find it very insulting to my intelligence.

And Basil-

Bluster without facts?

I see your posts in reference to the issue in the campaign and what the DOE is involved in. I never claimed that everything failed, I just mentioned this one venture proved a failure and costly, even after there were warnings before the garauntee was issued.

Are you saying Solyndra was NOT a failure? That is how it appears, but of course I could be wrong.

RWTP
(adopted because anyone with an opinion contrary to yours is only spurting the talking points. I will consider it a badge of honor.)

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 8:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 3, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.

You should realize by now that a source would only be "respected" or "credible" if it is synchronous with their beliefs.

You know, freedom of speech, unless they disagree.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 8:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*other side of this issue.*

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.

There is no real need to ask the KKK for their opinion on civil rights either.

IF you have something substantive from " *other side of this issue.* ", you have had ample opportunity to do so.

And there is a real reason why you haven't.

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 8:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*claim to have a consensus.*

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.

Expert credibility in climate change

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

See

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*If you are including the case of Solyndra as a success story,*

What the...? Who said...? Huh...?

*I would like to add that the conditions that merit a source as credible is exclusively the opinion of the consumer.*

Don't let facts/empirical data get in the way. Sounds like Fox to me! :))

*Don't raise the issue of propaganda please. You know as well as I do it is used by both sides. I find it very insulting to my intelligence.*

Yes yes. Blurring the lines. It works for many!

*Against abortion? Yes. I see it as murder.*

Then I suppose it's a constitutional right to commit "murder". If you had the power of a magic wand that allowed you to remove all access to abortion clinics, would you use it?

And to address my post...

DBW- I have not yet heard a valid argument that says we should not test for recieving benefits.

You need to look no further than your own arguments. i.e...............

*My problem is my small budget mentality.

For me, any savings is better than no savings at all. This means that I am angered by only one case of the system being abused.*

danabwoodley — July 31, 2012 at 11:21 p.m.

Given that data supports welfare drug testing wastes taxpayer $$$, and this seems to be a case of "one case of the system being abused" by doing so, how does this square with your I value every penny. mentality?

nailingit — August 1, 2012 at 12:20 a.m.

nailingit — August 2, 2012 at 11:07 a.m.

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 8:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 8:48 a.m.

Are you trying to equate real scientists, who have a healthy skepticism for the popular hype, with the terrorist arm of the democratic party?

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 8:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*. I never claimed that everything failed, I just mentioned this one venture...
....*

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 8:42 a.m

You named three. Three that show up on the RWTP (as defined by JohnCasey) repeatedly.

You didn't bother to note the full scope of the program.

Sorta like as if you hadn't ever visited the loan program site for documentation and just accepted some RWTP as an accurate resource.

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 3, 2012 at 8:59 a.m.

Give us a list of those "real scientists, who have a healthy skepticism for the popular hype"

Since there really aren't any, efforts to make a news story 'fair and balanced' by quoting a denier would be similar to adding quotes from the KKK in an article about civil rights.

Cue Byrd as a RWTalkingPoint in 3...2....1...

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 9:09 a.m. ( | suggest removal


We could always discuss that great hero of the democrats, George Wallace.

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 9:23 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Or LBJ, what's your point?

Still waiting for:

Proof of the 'GOP is not changed all that much'

List of scientists

Maybe I should dig through the past few weeks for more unsupported claims.....

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wallace/sfeature/quotes.html

And now, to add:

Proof of "*great hero of the democrats*"

mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 9:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 3, 2012 at 9:41 a.m.

You are the one that made the extraordinary claim that republicans are not republicans, it is up to you to provide extraordinary evidence. We all know that you can't do that.

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 9:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Not to mention, the long list of "historians rolling over in their graves"

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 9:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Either one is against the law and puts yourself in a libel situation.*

*So tell us, nailingit, just how do you know what my IP address is if you didn't try to hack my system or you do not work at the Columbian or at Comcast.

crazytrain — August 3, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.*

Absolutely...bizarre! You really want to keep this up?

A little dementia/paranoia setting in???

Glad to hear you have some friends crazy!!!

Thanks for your input!!!

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 10:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, I hear ya.

I've been traveling the I-5 parking lot for six months now and the idiots abound. My daughter and I started to make a game of who's using a cell. This is no joke. We have counted and average of over a hundred users per trip. This count is just a moment in time. I can imagine there are more users per mile than that.

Another issue is the carpool lane. People jump in just before it starts and wait for about a mile before they stop traffic to get out of it. At the north end they jump in about a half mile or more to get in it. They pick the long sweeping turn to jump in and if you're doing fifty it will make you have to go home and clean your shorts.

The motorcycle cop at the north end doesn't sit at the right place and there are no cops at the south end. I'm sure a few days a week would put a dent in this.

I have no facts other than my own eyes. If you don't believe me, drive it yourselves for one month and you too will be a believer.

TRJC

JohnCasey — August 3, 2012 at 1:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I finally saw Dark Knight Rises. The one with the Joker much much better. Anne Hathaway playing a good Catwoman was the pics saving grace.

JohnCasey- We took the 205 back from Clackamas this afternoon. Although a few stau's, I think we'd still be on the road if we had taken the 5. I totally agree with the use of cell phones while driving. LE could bring in much revenue while making the roads safer if they would push themselves away from the doughnut shop once in awhile and write a few tickets.

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 5:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Ralph Reed: Christians Need To Beg Forgiveness For God To Show Mercy In Election** (VIDEO)

"If we get down on our faces and our knees before Almighty God, and we beg of him, not because we're pointing fingers at anybody else, but because of what we have allowed to happen... then I believe in November God will have mercy on our land and we will have a Renaissance of the values that made this country great," he added.

Ralph Reed rocketed to political stardom in 1995, appearing on the cover of Time magazine as the wunderkind of the religious right. Dubbed the "Right Hand of God" and tapped by Pat Robertson to build the Christian Coalition, Reed had created a political juggernaut.

But questions about about financial misconduct, a money trail that eventually led straight to disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and an embarrassing election campaign defeat in 2006, toppled Reed from his place of prominence.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/ralph-reed-christians-need-beg-forgiveness_n_1738745.html

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 5:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


crazy- So much for the peace "bro comment"!

Please source where I had ever said I had such knowledge..."bro"

Is no one giving you any attention today?

The right wing blogs are short on conspiracy theories today? :))

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 5:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


paranoia

Definition of PARANOIA

1
: a psychosis characterized by systematized delusions of persecution or grandeur usually without hallucinations
2
: a tendency on the part of an individual or group toward excessive or irrational suspiciousness and distrustfulness of others

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 5:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


What's the matter crazy do you lose track of your :))))), or maybe your !!! I know you lost your eh .... eh???? Different users? Ha.

soapbox4u — August 3, 2012 at 6:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Looks like someone has a sidekick this evening...heck even the Lone Ranger had a sidekick. I still question why the name Tonto was used. Must be something in being somebody's shadow all the time.

goldenoldie — August 3, 2012 at 6:38 p.m. ( | suggest removal


That's not soil.

goldenoldie — August 3, 2012 at 6:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nailingit --- Count me as one who continues to be amazed that Ralph Reed didn't follow Abramoff to prison. Abramoff was involved in deregulation as well as Native American casino schemes.

Read link below for these quotes and more on Ralph Reed.

"Hey, now that I’m done with electoral politics, I need to start humping in corporate accounts! I’m counting on you to help me with some contacts." -Ralph Reed to Jack Abramoff, via email, November 12, 1998

Reed proposed to Abramoff some work which he and his firm, Century Strategies, could perform. Reed could access "3,000 pastors and 90,000 religious conservative households" in Alabama, as well as "the Alabama Christian Coalition, the Alabama Family Alliance, the Alabama Eagle Forum, [and] the Christian Family Association." Reed would require a $20,000 per month retainer for his services.[citation needed]

On June 22, 2006 the U.S. Senate Committee on Indian Affairs released its final report on the scandal.[10] The report states that under the guidance of the Mississippi Choctaw tribe's planner, Nell Rogers, the tribe agreed to launder money because "Ralph Reed did not want to be paid directly by a tribe with gaming interests." It also states that Reed used non-profits, including Grover Norquist's Americans for Tax Reform, as pass-throughs to disguise the origin of the funds, and that "the structure was recommended by Jack Abramoff to accommodate Mr. Reed’s political concerns."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Abr...

---------------------------
I don't have links to the work that Bill Moyers did. Here's a couple of films for more background on Reed & Abramoff:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/17/movies/17casino.html

http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/movies/07casino.html

langenthal — August 3, 2012 at 6:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


No soil golden, but it is certainly a hole.

soapbox4u — August 3, 2012 at 6:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Soapbox4u, I agree...and it's sure getting deep.

goldenoldie — August 3, 2012 at 7:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nailingit --- Why should anyone in Clark County care about Ralph Reed and his chicanery? If a bunch of right wing nut jobs [RWNJ] in the South want to give him their money, why should I care?

Religious Right's Ralph Reed Field-Tests Plan for Beating Obama
http://www.alternet.org/story/156141/religious_right's_ralph_reed_field-tests_plan_for_beating_obama/

I hope you get a chance to read that. More to come.

langenthal — August 3, 2012 at 7:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I was going to jump in here but I can't find a place that looks safe enough, also, I don't have my own four letters to put at the bottom. I guess I could figure something out.

DRGS

hawkeye — August 3, 2012 at 7:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nailingit --- Remember the League of Women Voters debate in 2010 where Josephine [fill in the blanks] Wentzel had to get up and leave before it ended? One of the Gossip Girls said it was because she had to go to speak to 1000 people.[I can't recall exact words.] One of JW's prominent qualifications was "keynote speaker". No one at the C asked who and wher she was speakiing and where was she getting her experience as a keynote speaker.

She was on the board of Ralph Reed's Faith & Freedom Coalition and was probably speaking to annual gathering.

The Faith & Freedom Coalition has changed their links/site so you can't see her picture with other national board members but here is her profile from their site:

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:h2oIb_9QpBMJS%3Aofficial&client;=firefox-a&hl;=en&ct;=clnk

Washington State Leadership
Josephine Wentzel
WA FFC
Josephine Wentzel, an avid networker, is the Public Relations Director for a U.S manufacturing company in Vancouver, Washington. Besides manufacturing in the United States, her company is known for providing office spaces to over thirty non-profit Christian agencies which services the community and United States. A former Police Detective, Josephine started her political activism in the early 90’s in Los Angeles, California when she joined in leadership with Christian Coalition. While living there, she was keynote speaker for Proposition 187 (illegal immigration) and the school voucher initiative. Her activism included speaking out for family issues like right to life, free adoptions and pro-marriage. In 2006, Josephine successfully lobbied to pass a law regarding transparency in financial transactions regarding adoptions. Josephine is also a participant with the WA State conservative leadership group. Josephine and her husband Michael are blessed with five children and two grandchildren. Her family attends LifePoint Church in Vancouver. Washington

langenthal — August 3, 2012 at 7:52 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Josephine Wetzel doesn't hold up to pressure when challenged on the facebook side of The Columbian either. A couple of weeks back she asked who we considered more qualified to be County Commissioner - a successful businessman or a truck driver. The truck driver was Marc Boldt - a job he held for a couple of years back in the '80s. A couple of us called her to task for this elitist comment - she was stupid enough to stick to her guns. Madore really needs to get rid of her - she's a detriment to a campaign that is fighting an uphill battle.

roger — August 3, 2012 at 8:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


langenthal- Good articles, in particular alternet. The webcache one wouldn't come up.

Tom Delay should be talking to Big Bubba any day now but he's still out on appeal.

The dishonesty, subterfuge, and scheming that is so prevalent in the "Christian" conservative wing of the GOP is astonishing! These people will buy any snake oil that's available, as long as they think it cures perceived "sin" with multiculturalism, choice, and gays.

Throw in New World Order, FEMA camps, Birtherism, etc., in the name of "taking our country back", and many fall right in line.

Facts and truth don't seem to matter much to these folks. At least not as much as pushing their social religious agenda.

Ralph Reed will help burn down the GOP before it's said and done. It will be interesting to see what voices will play at the RNC Convention this month. Should be quite the spectacle!

A sad period in American history concerning this. Historians will be shaking their heads for centuries about this so-called conservative movement... in my opinion. :)

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 8:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


langenthal 7:52 error --- LWV debate was 2011 not 2010; typos where not wher and speaking not speakiing

-----------------------------------------

Nailingit --- When I don't have anything to do and can't sleep, I've been trying to create a chronological CV or resume for David Madore. Should be easy, right? What with couv.com; notolls.com; LinkedIn; Facebook [public]; Facebook [private]; davidmadore.com; usdigital.com; Columbian interviews/info; Reflector interview;LA Times; etc, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.

I think I'm safe in challenging you to try even though I haven't tried again in several days. Info is missing and dates don't match from one source to another, etc. Who was it on here who was always talking about a spreadsheet? I think Madore takes his partisans for granted and figures no one is going to look for details.

Here is something that doesn't show up anywhere in all his blathering.

Our very own David Madore in bed with Ralph Reed. Do you think he's funneling names of all his loyal Christian followers to FFCoalition & Ralph Reed?

This is from the WA Sec of State. http://www.sos.wa.gov/corps/search_detail.aspx?ubi=603155366

WASHINGTON FAITH AND FREEDOM COALITION
UBI Number 603155366
Category REG
Profit/Nonprofit Nonprofit
Active/Inactive Active
State Of Incorporation WA
WA Filing Date 10/31/2011
Expiration Date 10/31/2012
Inactive Date
Duration Perpetual
Registered Agent Information
Agent Name Josephine Wentzel
Address 1400 NE 136th Avenue

City Vancouver
State WA
ZIP 98684
Special Address Information
Address
City
State
Zip

Governing Persons
Title Name Address
Chairman Madore, David 1400 NE 136th Avenue
Vancouver, WA
Director Peurasaari, Gary 1400 NE 136th Avenue
Vancouver, WA
Director Wentzel, Josephine 1400 NE 136th Avenue
Vancouver, WA

langenthal — August 3, 2012 at 8:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


langenthal- Speaking of which, this was also in the news today!

**Larry Craig: Trip To Airport Bathroom Where Arrest Took Place Was 'Official' Business**

BOISE, Idaho — Former Republican U.S. Sen. Larry Craig aims to fend off a federal election lawsuit against him by arguing his infamous June 11, 2007, Minneapolis airport bathroom visit that ended in his sex-sting arrest was part of his official Senate business.

Craig is hoping to avoid repaying $217,000 in campaign funds the Federal Election Commission claims he misused to defend himself.

The FEC sued Craig in June in U.S. District Court in Washington, D.C., alleging he converted the campaign money to personal use by spending it on his legal defense after he was accused of soliciting sex in a Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport bathroom. The commission argues Craig's defense had no connection to his campaign for federal office.

Craig counters that money tied to his airport bathroom trip was for neither personal use nor his campaign, but fell under his official, reimbursable duties as senator because he was traveling between Idaho and the nation's capital for work.

He cites a U.S. Senate rule in which reimbursable per diem expenses include all charges for meals, lodging, hotel fans, cleaning, pressing of clothing – and bathrooms.

"Not only was the trip itself constitutionally required, but Senate rules sanction reimbursement for any cost relating to a senator's use of a bathroom while on official travel," wrote Andrew Herman, Craig's lawyer in Washington, D.C., in documents filed Thursday.

In its complaint, the FEC contends the three-term U.S. senator's campaign account, Craig for U.S. Senate, paid at least $139,952 to the law firm Sutherland, Asbill and Brennan in Washington, D.C., and $77,032 to Kelly & Jacobson in Minnesota for legal services related to his guilty plea to disorderly conduct.

An undercover officer said Craig tapped his feet and signaled under a stall divider that he wanted sex.

In documents supporting his bid to have the complaint dismissed, Craig cites the case of former U.S. Rep. Jim Kolbe of Arizona, who tapped campaign money in 2006 to defend himself after allegations of improper behavior emerged against him following a Grand Canyon rafting trip with two former male pages.

The trip by Kolbe, the second openly gay Republican to serve in Congress, was an official visit with support provided by the National Park Service.

The FEC concluded that Kolbe's use of the campaign money to pay legal expenses associated with a Department of Justice inquiry regarding the trip were "ordinary and necessary expenses incurred in connection with his duty as a House member."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/larry-craig-airport-bathroom_n_1739142.html

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 8:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — August 3, 2012 at 8:12 p.m

I remember that. She really gets riled up if you call her Jojo. Don't know why, it just does. I actually enjoy bouncing off her, she just freaks out and then Dave comes to her rescue just as she comes to his when needed.

hawkeye — August 3, 2012 at 8:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Great find langenthal! Check out this link. To include Beck in bed with Reed, spouting off that "he has seen the finger of God"! :)) I can guess as to what finger God would give the Beckster!

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/category/organizations/faith-and-freedom-coalition

Now we know Vancouver's "conservative" tax cuttin' blog retractin' Bush lovin' Madore is up to his eyeballs with this trash. Time to take the garbage out.

nailingit — August 3, 2012 at 8:59 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nailingit 8:31 --- The link was dead so I had to use the cache. It was the profile of JW that was on the FFCoalition site. I try to always include a link to everything I cut & paste.

The FFCoalition site has really changed. Just a few days ago, it had a banner that said, "Stop Obama's War on Religious Liberty".

http://ffcoalition.com/

JFMW isn't listed as a speaker at their event in Tampa that coincides with RNC.

http://ffctamparally.eventbrite.com/

langenthal — August 3, 2012 at 10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


So only sources with conservative leanings are the ones to ignore facts? So Fox is in no way a credible source?
But huffpo and moveon are? Again, credibility is the opinion of the consumer.

No, I am not blurring the lines. I do acknowledge that the right uses propoganda. I can also recognize the left does as well. Am I to understand you disagree?

In my opinion, yes, SCOTUS has determined that people have a constitutional right to commit murder in the form of abortion. As stated, I do feel it is an evil act. To end your child's life after birth would constitute murder, right? Why is it different before birth?

But it is determined as legal. I know that it is wrong to respond to evil with evil, which is why I do not agree with those who will murder doctors or bomb clinics. Instead, I will refuse to be apart of the act. I will teach my children my beliefs and pray they choose to follow my lead. I will pray for the souls of the children murdered. And pray the ones responsible for these senseless deaths will learn their error and seek redemption.

You apparently didn't or chose to ignore where I acknowledged the study that showed the testing cost more than the apparent savings. That means you didn't see, or are invalidating my questions regarding the assumed conditions that generated the figures for that study. Until I know that, then I am afraid I must remain skeptical of the conclusion.

I know, skepticism is only healthy if it supports your position, right?

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 3, 2012 at 10:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger and Hawkeye --- I've noticed that over the top sensitivity also.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2011/no...

CASA program director Jo Waddell said that Wentzel did not call her until the day the story ran, when Wentzel told her she volunteered under a different name. Waddell confirmed that name was Jaye Mitchell.

langenthal — August 3, 2012 at 10:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


DBW- *So only sources with conservative leanings are the ones to ignore facts?*

Not in my opinion.

*So Fox is in no way a credible source?*

By and large no. I believe they score the weather right on occasion, and Shepard Smith seems unbiased and is noteworthy. Please review following...more sources on request.

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2011/11/22/seven-surveys-make-a-trend-for-fox-and-viewers/167217

http://publicmind.fdu.edu/2011/knowless/

*Again, credibility is the opinion of the consumer.*

And again, your statement is false on it's face. Facts and empirical data speak to credibility.

*No, I am not blurring the lines.*

Yet you do so continually. My opinion. ;)

*I do acknowledge that the right uses propoganda.*

Earlier you said such a statement insulted your intelligence. A penchant for mindful self flagellation?

*I can also recognize the left does as well. Am I to understand you disagree?*

I do not disagree.

*In my opinion, yes, SCOTUS has determined that people have a constitutional right to commit murder in the form of abortion.*

A very radical activist view.

*As stated, I do feel it is an evil act.*

Even when the life of the mother is in Jeopardy? In cases of rape & incest? Define "evil".

*To end your child's life after birth would constitute murder, right?*

In most cases that most likely would be correct.

*Why is it different before birth?*

Source Roe v Wade and varying medical opinions for further review.

*But it is determined as legal.*

Correct.

*I know that it is wrong to respond to evil with evil, which is why I do not agree with those who will murder doctors or bomb clinics. Instead, I will refuse to be apart of the act.*

Nice to hear you do not agree and are not willing/complicit to commit pre-meditated murder. Are you privy to anyone/group that commits such unwarranted acts of violence?

*I will teach my children my beliefs and pray they choose to follow my lead.*

Your prerogative.

*I will pray for the souls of the children murdered.*

You will pray for souls after death? Are you of the Mormon faith?

*And pray the ones responsible for these senseless deaths will learn their error and seek redemption.*

Sounds pretty high minded. If Mormon, do you expect to attain a type of Godhood some day?

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 7:42 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*You apparently didn't or chose to ignore where I acknowledged the study that showed the testing cost more than the apparent savings.*

Assuming you've changed subjects and are speaking to drug testing, I must have missed it. Please show me where testing for drug use saves the states money when applied to applicants for food stamps, financial support, etc.

*That means you didn't see, or are invalidating my questions regarding the assumed conditions that generated the figures for that study.*

Invalidating a question? Again, please be specific.

*Until I know that, then I am afraid I must remain skeptical of the conclusion.*

?

*I know, skepticism is only healthy if it supports your position, right?*

How did you conclude this?

RWTP

Spot on!

No one likes the thought or act of abortion. Sometimes it is a necessary/chosen procedure and validated by law in the U.S.

Perhaps if the conservative right would encourage the use of contraception instead of vilifying it, there would be less abortion procedures.

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 7:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Romney As A Mormon Bishop: What Was He Like?**

She was not the only woman upset by Romney. A 1994 article in the Boston Phoenix told the story of an anonymous woman (who has since been identified) who wrote an article in a feminist Mormon magazine claiming Romney, as bishop, discouraged her from having an abortion even though her health was at stake. Romney later said he could not remember the incident.

In the Phoenix story, Judy Dushku, a professor of government at Suffolk University, and church member Evelyn Harvill said they urged Romney to speak out about domestic abuse, but Romney brushed off their concerns. Harvill, who did not respond to an emailed request for comment, told the Phoenix that Romney was an "elitist" who "surrounds himself in church with rich, powerful white men."

Dushku said in an email that she found Romney "insensitive on many levels," but declined to comment further, citing numerous media requests.

Another area where Romney was criticized was his attitude toward homosexuality. In July 1994, during Romney's U.S. Senate campaign, The Boston Globe published a story saying that Romney, in a speech to a congregation of single Mormons, said he found homosexuality "perverse and reprehensible." The story cited one named and three unnamed sources.

Romney denied the comments. "I specifically said they should avoid homosexuality and they should avoid heterosexual relations outside of marriage," Romney told the Globe then. "I did not use the words perverse or perversion. I just said it was wrong. ... That is what my church believes."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/27/romney-mormon-bishop_n_1708387.html?utm_hp_ref=religion

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 7:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail-

This is getting to be entertaining that we go back and forth like this with a time separation, yet we do seem to get where the other is posting in regards to. That being said, let's begin.

My acknowledgement of the use of propoganda doesn't mean I agree with it. The use of propoganda merely appeals to the sycophants that exist on both ends of the spectrum. I believe these sycophants are dangerous, and are responsible for the extreme actions that the opposing side can point to in attempt of invalidating the point of opposition.

If my view of abortion being evil is radical then I suppose this is one issue that will qualify me for that label. In the case of danger to the mother, I will admit creates a moral dilema. Not having been confronted with that situation, I cannot give a clear answer to how I would respond. Regardless, I would pray for redemption. Either way, a life is taken, and that is a sad occasion.

Rape or incest? There are other options to look at besides abortion (yes, adoption is an example of one such option). The act of rape or incest are acts of selfishness (among other things). I say again, do not respond to evil with evil. To carry to term may be difficult emotionally, but it is just as selfish to take this childs life in an attempt to simplify your own.

Yes I would pray for someone after their death. I would ask that God accept him into paradise so they may never again know the evils they had to experience on this world.
High minded? If that is what you want to call it. Before anyone tries to say anything to the contrary, no I am in no way perfect, nor am I trying to say I live my life better than anyone else. I just try to be the best I can be, and hope I can attain favor in the eyes of the Creator.

No I am not Mormon.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 8:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**President Obama Accused Of Racism Against Whites In New SuperPAC Web Ad**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/obama-racism-super-pac-web-ad_n_1739800.html?utm_hp_ref=politics&ir;=Politics

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 8:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I will again try to explain why I am not convinced about the cost of testing. I did find the various sources that stated that FLAs own offices determined the cost exceeded the savings. I am skeptical to these findings.

The reason I am skeptical is because of some information that is not explained. I could not find any source that showed the figures used to calculate the savings from unpaid assistance. Specifically, how much monthly assistance would have been paid, and for how long would each case have recieved the assistance? Those two pieces of data would go a long way to determine the total savings that we could bounce against the program costs.

Will you disagree that it is possible that these figures were determined based upon the affect it would have on the outcome of the report?

Nail, I hope this clarifies it for you. (at least the reason for my skepticism if not concurrence with my position on the issue)

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 8:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh, sorry. Just notice a couple of points I missed.

The reason I think that abortion is such a heated issue is because it is used entirely too often as a means of contraception. Again, a selfish act responding to a selfish act. A person chose to have a sexual encounter with another, they chose to not properly protect against pregnancy, so they choose (selfishly) to end a pregnancy (by murder) they do not want (but didn't plan for beforehand). Sounds selfish to me.

Apparently you didn't see my previous post in which I discussed contraception. I will attempt to reconstruct.

I am not against contraception. I believe that everyone is capable of choosing to protect themselves from disease or pregnancy if they choose to engage in sexual behavior. It's a series of choices and isn't that the heart of the bill of rights?

But it is a choice, it isn't a medical necessity.*

If you have an insurance plan through a private company that will cover voluntary procedures, then by all means have at it. I don't agree with the government forcing an insurance company to provide coverage for a volutary procedure. This infringes upon the freedom of the private business owner to choose.

RWTP

*foot note. I know that there are some cases that a birth control pill could be considered a medical necessity. I would not be against that sort of coverage, assuming it isn't abused by people lying about such a condition just so they can get the contraception for the sole purpose of birth control.

danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 8:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**A must watch!! If a person cares about this election at all.....check this out!** I watched Rachel last night, and I have to say this tax argument just received new direction. Great reporting!

**Maddow: Romney demanded opponents’ tax returns and lied about residency in 2002**

http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/08/04/maddow-romney-demanded-his-political-opponents-tax-returns-in-2002/

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 8:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Rape or incest? There are other options to look at besides abortion (yes, adoption is an example of one such option). **The act of rape or incest are acts of selfishness** (among other things). I say again, do not respond to evil with evil. To carry to term may be difficult emotionally, **but it is just as selfish to take this childs life in an attempt to simplify your own.**

Wow!! Incredible parallel. Lemons make lemonade I suppose. Amazing thought process! Yes, you have clarified much with your statement.

*Yes I would pray for someone after their death. I would ask that God accept him into paradise...*

Catholic? What religion are you? (reasonable question as you premise most of your views on whatever faith" you ascribe to).

*Again, a selfish act responding to a selfish act. A person chose to have a sexual encounter with another, they chose to not properly protect against pregnancy, so they choose (selfishly) to end a pregnancy (by murder) they do not want (but didn't plan for beforehand). Sounds selfish to me.*

You assume much! You are making your views quite clear by the way. Do you think that pre-marital sex is wrong or "evil"?

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 9:01 a.m. ( | suggest removal


langenthal/others- In the same vein with last night's discussion.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zjvais...

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


A treat for our forum religious conservative followers. At least Jimbo is tickling the ivory's this time and not a prosti.......anyway, enjoy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IRHLx...

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 9:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 8:49 a.m.

Maddow "reporting" are you serious? She is a political commentator, the same as Rush or Beck.

frobert — August 4, 2012 at 9:27 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*Maddow "reporting" are you serious?*

Yes.

*She is a political commentator, the same as Rush or Beck.*

Last I checked she hadn't called anyone a slut or trumpeted FEMA concentration camps.

Please point out any factual errors in the video. Otherwise your comment is just blather.

Oh if the world were so simplistic as it is through a conservatives eyes.

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 9:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


LouB. Quite the hit job today. You do our community no favors with junk & false equivalencies with writes such as this.

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/au...

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 10:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


How can you figure that is a false equivalence fallacy? Comparing someone getting too much in their paycheck and someone getting too much in their retirement check would be a legitimate equivalency. Just because you don't like someone's opinion on a subject doesn't mean their argument is a fallacy.

frobert — August 4, 2012 at 10:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nailingit --- Did you read the Oregonian article that he did NOT include? Seems like pandering to the Madore crowd to make up for whatever. The article was so blatantly irresponsible for what it didn't include but it was red meat for the Lew Waters tribe. Subtlety and competence are not Lou B's strong suit.

langenthal — August 4, 2012 at 11:21 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nailingit 9:01 --- I'm thinking Islamic.

langenthal — August 4, 2012 at 11:38 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Nails,

My focus went to the one sentence comment about stopping the practice of paying unused vacation time to Clark County deputies. Is that the false equivalency you're referencing? If so, I agree.

P'Town identified their overpayment in 2008. If they're still fighting this, that's their problem. As I noted to Lou, it's all the more reason we don't need their Tri-Met MAX operation here; their pensions are taking a major chunk of their budget. That cost would be shared by us - higher fares at a minimum.

No idea about Clark County, but most gov'ts that have vacation time as a benefit require you to use it by a certain date - the "use/lose" rule. But they make exceptions for critical jobs and for those military who can't use it due to being deployed. If that's what was going on here - the Sheriff's Dept is routinely tasked out to the max - then it was a mistake to kill this payout.

Hmmm.... The Columbian is also running articles commending private citizens who donate their time and money to maintain public parks that Vancouver no longer takes care of. I wonder what they'd say about private citizens who, on observing the Sheriff's Dept no longer has the manpower to put cars on residential streets to stop/ticket people who speed, decide to also augment gov't by putting out some of those little spike strips?

roger — August 4, 2012 at 11:43 a.m. ( | suggest removal


OK - For some reason The Columbian won't let me post this with the articles referenced linked to. One site uses cookies; not sure if that's a problem. The other - from a newspaper in Ely, NV - has an .html ending to it's address.

===============================

Seeing as how someone mentioned Solyndra....

In 2006, Washington required that 15% of our electricity come from alternative sources. Solar and wind are included, but not hydroelectric power.There are groups out their trying to get this requirement kicked higher - up to 40%.

Several months ago, BPA told the wind farms to shut down temporarily; we had an over abundance of electricity being generated by the dams, and seeing as how we can't store electricity --- no way to transport it to the end user (to include California, but that's a different fight). Why? Maybe BPA owns the dams? Or perhaps because hydroelectric is cheaper for the customer?

The wind power industry cannot compete without gov't subsidy. This remains true today, as supported by two articles that note the industry will fail if the Production Tax Credit and the Incentive Tax Credit aren't extended by Congress. This article say 37,000 jobs would be lost.

An opinion piece from a Nevada paper goes further.

Quoting the CEO of a local wind power company, “The production tax credit is critical to the wind energy industry and the tens of thousands of U.S. manufacturing jobs currently providing American-made wind power products,” Pattern Energy Chief Executive Officer Mike Garland recently told The Ely Times. “Asking the wind industry to compete without the PTC is akin to asking a NASCAR driver to compete in a car with three wheels.”

Further, the cost of the electricity generated is much higher. "While Pattern has a 20-year contract to sell power from its 66 wind turbines made by a German company to NV Energy for 9.8 cents a kilowatt-hour, with a 1 percent annual escalator clause. The PTC effectively kicks that wholesale rate up to 12 cents per KWh — a fraction of a cent higher than what the statewide power company’s typical residential customer pays retail."

What continues to amaze me is that we have a relatively inexpensive source of electricity - the Columbia River and other waterways - and we're going to tear down the dams that generate this power. Do they pollute the environment, like can be argued about coal powered generating plants? Has it got something to do with the little fishies that we get upset with the sea lions for eating? Or is there money in someone's pocket involved?

roger — August 4, 2012 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


langenthal- I just read it on Oregonlive. *Seems like pandering to the Madore crowd to make up for whatever.* Well stated. It seems as though LouB does this once in awhile to keep the dogs at bay. Doesn't matter what subject or cause, although he has a penchant for trashing those in public service, just do it in the spirit of so-called middle ground. Give em' a tea party talking point and preen their feathers. They should be tarred! :)

roger & fro- I find the false equivalency with the premise of the article. "Would you do the fair thing?"

To use this premise, (a one time over payment of 3 million dollars) than segue into what Lou perceives as some sort of victimization of employees in the private sector and taxpayers is ludacris. i.e.

*I suspect this somewhat cavalier attitude comes from what the taxpayers have been doing all along. Giving it up to public employees. You know, stuff like great benefits and sweet pensions. Stuff that most of us private working stiffs haven't seen in years.
• • •
Sometimes I wonder if private working stiffs will ever wake up to what's going on. The reason why we're taken advantage of is, politicians don't fear us at the ballot box. But they do fear government workers who are organized.

The one thing working in favor of the private working stiff is this: Our pockets are empty.*

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 12:30 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger @ 12:26- Good take on the article. The 21st century Republican leadership and Ron Paul's crowd want to bring down the government in any way shape or form. It doesn't seem to matter when it comes to employment, investment in infrastructure, etc.

Congress is acting exactly the way the people who put them in power expect them to. Do nothing and block everything. (with the exception of pushing a radical social agenda. i.e. anti-abortion, anti-gay, anti-multiculturalism, etc.)

Fortunately with a 17% approval rating, they stand a decent chance of losing the house.

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 12:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


langenthal @ 11:38- danabwoodley has extremist views that make Sharia law look liberal! Check this out. Source is Wiki.

In Islam, the fetus is believed to become a living soul after four months of gestation,[1] and abortion after that point is generally viewed as impermissible. Many Islamic thinkers recognize exceptions to this rule for certain circumstances; indeed, Azizah Y. al-Hibri notes that "the majority of Muslim scholars permit abortion, although they differ on the stage of fetal development beyond which it becomes prohibited.

**Threat to the woman's life**

On the issue of the life of the woman, Muslims universally agree that her life takes precedence over the life of the fetus. This is because the woman is considered the "original source of life", while the fetus is only "potential" life.[5] Muslim jurists agree that abortion is allowed based on the principle that "the greater evil [the woman's death] should be warded off by the lesser evil [abortion]." In these cases the physician is considered a better judge than the scholar.[6]
[edit

**Rape**
Most Muslim scholars hold that the child of rape is a legitimate child and thus it would sinful to kill this child. Scholars permit its abortion only if the fetus is less than four months old, or if it endangers the life of its mother.[7]

Muslim scholars were urged to make exceptions in the 1990s following rapes of Kuwaiti women by Iraqi soldiers (in 1991) and the rape of Bosnian women by Serb soldiers. In 1991, the Grand Mufti of Palestine took a different position than mainstream Muslim scholars. He ruled that Muslim women raped by their enemies during the Kosovo War could take abortifacient medicine, because otherwise the children born to those women might one day fight for the Serbs against the Muslims.[7]
[edit]Fetal deformity

Some Muslim scholars also argue that abortion is permitted if the newborn might be sick in some way that would make its care exceptionally difficult for the parents (e.g. deformities, mental retardation, etc.).[7][2]
[edit]

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 1:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley/To whom it may concern: It's hard to imagine equating such horrific crimes as rape and incest to lawfully terminating a pregnancy, (yet you did) and giving the primary reason/description for rape and incest is selfishness. I'm still blown away by the post at **8:22.**

Then at **8:47** you seem to equate these horrific criminal acts, with having sex without protection, and citizens choosing legal voluntary termination. (and one could easily interpret this to include the morning after pill)

*Again, a selfish act responding to a selfish act. A person chose to have a sexual encounter with another, they chose to not properly protect against pregnancy, so they choose (selfishly) to end a pregnancy (by murder) they do not want (but didn't plan for beforehand). Sounds selfish to me.*

This is a good example of why people are turned off by religion and the extremist followers they attract.

Sometimes you folks on the conservative right are absolutely amazing!

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 1:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.

Social conservative are not conservative in fact I would contend they are more often centrist.

frobert — August 4, 2012 at 1:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Okay folks, I don't mean to cut in on a debate here, but I am really happy about the results of a test run I decided to try. No...not an olympic-style run. I'll leave that to the athletes. What I'm talking about is a very small way to save a buck at home...and it's fun, too. This morning, I took an old cardboard box...the type you buy office paper in, cut off one side of it and lined the entire inside of the remainder of the box with clean, recycled aluminum foil that I'd been saving after using it on leftovers in the fridge. I then secured it onto the box with duct tape. It's also known as a solar oven (directions on the web).

Anyhow, I have saved gallon-sized water bottles in order to catch the running water while my dish water heats up in the kitchen or from water I ran through a filter system from rain water I collect for the garden. Since I do not have a dishwasher (out of choice when we remodeled), I wash my dishes by hand. I took two of the gallon bottles which were full with water from various collections yesterday...dishes, water from boiling eggs...that kind of water collection (not the rainwater. that was used up in the garden). I set the two gallons of water...each registering 60 degrees on my thermometer...on my solar oven about 11:00am this morning on the south side...sunny side of my house. By 1:00pm, the water registered a toasty 120 degrees...hot enough to wash a sink load of dishes. I only had a half sink, but for anybody who has roughed it while camping in the wilderness, I know how to conserve dish water. The dishes soaked in the large bowl with about a half gallon of piping-hot water and some mild dish soap. The other half gallon rinsed everything off afterwards.

It doesn't sound like much in the way of saving a buck or two...but my solar water heater/oven was made with 100% recycled products...and was free! No hot water heater used...no electricity...ALL FREE!!! And there's still another gallon of piping-hot water just waiting for tonight's dishes!

A penny saved...is a penny earned...and so is the smile on my face for my success, no matter how small it is.

goldenoldie — August 4, 2012 at 1:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


BTW, I don't expect the water to become as hot on cooler days. That will be something that's an ongoing test of mine and I'll keep you posted. Either way...just one little gallon or two...not using electricity...

If more folks would give it a try...they'd probably feel the same way I do...a little success on a hot day.

Something else I discovered today...don't boil potatoes on a side burner of a barbecue. It uses too much fuel. We ended using our camp stove this morning. No in-house stove use today. Also...while I "baked" our chicken on the gas barbecue, I decided to whip up two small zucchini bread loaves and put them on the shelf above the chicken in the barbecue. Today, we are sporting baked chicken, potato salad and wonderful zucchini bread...as good as the stuff I cook in the electric oven...which will be joined with old-fashioned vanilla bean ice cream and fresh-sliced honeydew melon that has been chilled all day!

Don't ya just love summer!!!

goldenoldie — August 4, 2012 at 1:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


The Olympics 10K race just finished - gold to Farah of Great Britain, and silver to Galen Rupp of USA. They're training partners, in Eugene - coached by Alberto Salazar.

Outstanding race - last couple of laps were highly suspenseful, with 6 or 7 runners in contention until the last third of a lap.

roger — August 4, 2012 at 1:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit,

Geez - I think we've been over this a couple of times before. Don't you radical Liberals ever learn???? (And that's intended as a joke - thought I'd clarify this, seeing as how things are getting a bit testy here lately.)

The Sharia law you posted looks fairly close to what a whole lot of people in this country believe. Their 16 weeks as the cutoff for when abortion is permissible is a bit more stringent than in this country, where we argue about 20 to 24 months (in the courts; Pro-Choice doesn't want a limit). And it looks like they try to be more accepting of the chances for a rape baby to lead a good life - unless the rapist was an infidel, of course.

Dana comes across as a fundamentalist with his religious beliefs in his earlier post - but he states them as his beliefs - not as facts, as many of that ilk tend to do.

And in his second post, he uses the same argument against paying for contraception that I use against having state funded abortions - why should I pay for something that's elective in nature?

I personally find this wrongly based on the sanctity of life - abortion is taking the life of a living entity, while contraception keeps the egg from ever reaching this point. And I'll follow that argument with asking what happens if the egg isn't fertilized? Nothing; the body sloughs it off as waste. Contraception just (hopefully) makes sure this still happens when sperm is present.

But then, in a nice twist, he closes by getting back to a point I can agree with. If I as an employer am paying for the health insurance of my employees, and if I am an extremely conservative Catholic who actually follows the dicta of the Pope (unlike 90+% of that faith, when it comes to contraception), then why should I be required to provide a plan that covers contraception? If my employee wants that service, then that employee can pay for it.

To me, the right to be free from being forced to follow the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of another goes both ways.

roger — August 4, 2012 at 2:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Don't ya just love summer!!!" --- goldenoldie — August 4, 2012 at 1:50 p.m.

In short - No. It's getting ready to top 100. I refused to return to Phoenix AZ after getting out of the Army because of weather like this. This place is supposed to have a nice, mild climate. This heat is unacceptable. Completely. Totally. And I don't care if it gets your water heated to boiling; it's too damned hot and oughtn't be allowed anywhere civilized people live.

So there.

Maybe I should look at going to Antarctica and staking my claim before the crowds move there.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/antarctica-was-once-a-rai_n_1733597.html?icid=maing-grid7|main5|dl3|sec1_lnk3%26pLid%3D188147

roger — August 4, 2012 at 2:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger, it just topped 103 on my patio in the shade. I know what you mean about our "temperate" climate. We're supposed to be averaging something like 76-80 degrees annually during this month. I'm wondering if the climatologists' averages include night temps when gathering their data. It never reflects the actual heat of August. It seems this is always the week of 95+ degree weather in time for CC Fair and the Hillsboro Air Show.

I just decided to make lemonade out of our weather lemons. I was happy to share...hoping there'd be someone else out there in Columbianland who likes to experiment on safe energy savings.

Like you, I too hate extreme heat. Double that with 95-100% humidity like I experienced in Aussie a couple of years ago...much like Florida where they say you can get a shower and towel off, but you're still wringin' wet. All the more reason to keep from using my stove in the house during this hot weather. it has kept our temps down in the house to a mere 78 degrees without any air conditioning.

And the way the national weather models are showing...that drought is creeping northward from last year...mostly in Texas and New Mexico last year...now in the farm belt (corn belt). It'll be a matter of time when my little ideas to conserve water and electricity will come in handy for those who give a rat's behind and want to save a buck or two.

BTW, have you noticed how products with corn and soy are creeping up in price lately??? I have...some as much as a dollar more. It's going to get worse before it gets better. I suggest everyone check out drought.gov to keep abreast of the drought issues. It IS and will continue to affect what we put on our kitchen table at dinner...as well as the price of fuel (ethanol additives and biodiesel) and clothing. Everything else will follow. I'd give it about October when the impact will truly begin on a global scale and this isn't the first impact on global food crises, either.

One more comment...my relative is currently in the Yukon Territory...just paid $7.50 for a gallon of milk and a banana @ $4.50 a pound. We could be seeing those prices here by the holidays unfortunately.

goldenoldie — August 4, 2012 at 3:24 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger...

regarding Antarctica...getting too commercialized. Too many tourists. It's pushing out the residents (the wildlife)...8)))

goldenoldie — August 4, 2012 at 3:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Yes, Goldie - I was watching a news bit a few days back. The corn crop is being clobbered. And when they showed how widely used corn is - everything else will go up too. Just about anything cow, pig and chicken. Sweetened stuff. And I suppose we'll get charged more for gas, too; even though ethanol is an additive, something says leaving it out will cost us more!

Anyhow, food is expected to increase something like 5.5% on the average. Those living day to day are going to have a rough go.

roger — August 4, 2012 at 3:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert @ 1:44-nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.

Social conservative are not conservative in fact I would contend they are more often centrist.

Not sure what post you were referring to @ 1:24. Anyway I guess it depends on interpretation. You're wrong according to wiki.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_c...

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 3:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Tourists molesting the Antarctic penguins. Guess you're right there too, Goldie.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/08/0822_030822_antarctictours.html

And, like every where else we go, we're leaving a trash heap behind.

http://www.antarctica.gov.au/environment/human-impacts-in-antarctica

roger — August 4, 2012 at 3:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


We've finally went ahead of China with the gold medal count. 26 to 25!

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 3:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Mitt Romney: Evangelical warrior**

His Israel comments weren't simply gaffes: They were part of his ongoing campaign to win over the religious right
BY SARAH POSNER

On the question of Israel-Palestine, while Mormons historically, especially during the Cold War, have been reflexively pro-Israel, owing to the role of Israel and the Jews in end-times prophecy, that position has undergone a “mellowing,” according to Daniel C. Peterson, professor of Islamic Studies and Arabic in the Department of Asian and Near Eastern Languages at Brigham Young University.

Peterson told me in an interview this week that — unlike conservative evangelical orthodoxy — Mormons have long taught that Muslims “are too, from our point of view, theologically descendants of Abraham.” Compare that to evangelicals like John Hagee, probably the country’s most visible and politically influential Christian Zionist and close ally of the Israeli right, who claims “those who live by the Qu’ran have a scriptural mandate to kill Christians and Jews,” and reminds his followers: “Never forget this is a theological war!”

Even before his trip to Israel, at a presidential debate during the primary in January, Romney seemed to forget what his church has to say about Palestinians and Islam in general. Palestinian-American audience member Abraham Hassan (who is Christian) asked, “How would a Republican administration help bring peace to Palestine and Israel when most candidates barely recognize the existence of Palestine or its people?” Romney blamed the Palestinians exclusively for the intractability of the conflict, refused to acknowledge the occupation, and reduced the conflict to monolithic good vs. evil: “The Israelis would be happy to have a two-state solution. It’s the Palestinians who don’t want a two-state solution. They want to eliminate the state of Israel.” (After Romney’s Israel visit, the nationalist deputy speaker of the Knesset Danny Danon, who is adamantly opposed to a two-state solution, called Romney a “true friend” of Israel.)

Perhaps Romney’s most lavish pander to the religious right was at a campaign stop in Wisconsin in April, where he asserted, “We are now all Catholics. Those of us who are people of faith recognize this is — an attack on one religion is an attack on all religion.” Except when that religion isn’t one with the stamp of approval of the Christian right.

read more @

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/03/mitt_romney_evangelical_warrior/

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 4:11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


¡sǝnssı ʇsoɯ uo uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɹɐ s,uɐɔılqndǝɹ s,ʎɐpoʇ :)

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 4:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


A clip from yesterday's Morning Joe. The majority is discussing Romney allegedly not paying any taxes the past 10 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/48479793#48479793

About Minute 3 we get to see Harry Reid pontificating on this. My response at that time was "And just who passed the laws that allowed him to do this, you blanking twit?????"

About Minute 7 Donny Deutsch identifies what I agree is the real problem Romney faces. Even if he were to release the returns, and even if they do show he paid taxes (at least in some years) and earned deductions for millions in charitable contributions, the Dems will have won this fight. Because the average American will see how he was able to, within the law, move money around and to off shore accounts, and thereby reduce or wipe out any tax liability. And the average American, not having the wherewithal to do the same, is going to be pissed.

As someone else notes (Mike Barnicle, I think), if he'd released the returns before - say back during the Repub primary fighting - he'd be beyond this by now, relatively unscathed. But by now, the perception is that he's hiding something that he's done wrong. Legal or not no longer matters.

roger — August 4, 2012 at 4:25 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 3:48 p.m.

"Not sure what post you were referring to @ 1:24. Anyway I guess it depends on interpretation. You're wrong according to wiki."

From your source, if you are going to quote it you should at least read it.

"There is no necessary link between social and fiscal conservatism; some social conservatives such as Mike Huckabee,[3] George W. Bush,[4] and Michael Gerson[5] are otherwise apolitical, centrist or liberal on economic and fiscal issues."

I would say that Wikipedia agrees with me.

frobert — August 4, 2012 at 5:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — August 4, 2012 at 12:26 p.m.

Can anyone please explain to me how hydro is NOT a renewable resource and wind is?

hawkeye — August 4, 2012 at 5:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- I know you're no fan of Maddow, but if you haven't, check out the vid @ 8:49.

Romney has painted himself in a corner. Some Dem pundits are throwing around possible felony tax fraud. We'll hear more and more about this in days, weeks to come.

Not releasing his tax returns is about the only issue Romney hasn't flip flopped on.

Romney's hiding much. To assess keeping his tax returns from public domain at this point, one has to wonder...

CNN is picking up on this inside source thing.

Last night on Anderson Cooper’s 360 Degrees, CNN Senior Congressional correspondent Dana Bash confirmed that a second source claims Harry Reid’s source is a “credible person” who has the “authority and ability to know about Romney’s tax returns.” Bash’s confirmation of a second source was cut out of CNN’s online video in order to make room for a he-said she-said debate on the issue between Paul Begala and Mary Matalin.

Bash’s confirmation was largely ignored by Cooper, who was busy making false equivocations of Reid’s allegations to Michele Bachmann writing letters to governmental agencies calling for investigations of American citizens.

http://www.politicususa.com/cnn-cuts-dana-bashs-confirmation-source-confirming-reid.html

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 5:05 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert- :)) reread! On fiscal matters centrist, not social as we were discussing. i.e. abortion, gay rights etc. etc. etc......

Social conservatism is an authoritarian political ideology that focuses on the preservation of what are seen as traditional values. The accepted goals and ideologies related to preserving traditions and morality often varies from group to group within social conservatism. Thus, there are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social conservatives. There are however a number of general principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere, such as support for puritanical morality and traditional family values, often based on a specific understanding of Abrahamist values, and opposition to sexual permissiveness.
As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in opposing euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion; oppose both eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;[1] support abstinence-only education, school prayers, gun ownership and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage; support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs; oppose prostitution and brothels, polygamy, gay adoption, premarital sex, and non-marital sex; and object to pornography and what they consider to be indecency and promiscuity. Some may also oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools, preferring creationism.[2]

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 5:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 5:10 p.m.

It is a misnomer to associate them with conservatives, conservatives believe in smaller less intrusive government. The so called "social conservatives" have latched on and are doing a pretty good job of exploiting, but they are in no way conservative. If they believe in expansion of government they are centrist to liberal.

frobert — August 4, 2012 at 5:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


fro @ 5:31- Then you should take that up with Wiki, the media, every acclaimed dictionary/encyclopedia, to include 99.99999% of the population.

We can nuance words all day. It's what I was saying about labels a few days back. A general representation of groups/thinking.

Easier in your case to call yourself/belief a fiscal conservative. But then I would argue many Libertarian measures, if enacted, would be much more costly in the long run.

But not today. I've had my fill of "blatherous" conservatism. :)

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 6:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Can anyone please explain to me how hydro is NOT a renewable resource and wind is?

hawkeye — August 4, 2012 at 5:03 p.m.

hawkeye- Good question. Check this out. It helped clear it up for me.

http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2012/01/13/renewable-or-not-how-states-count-hydropowe/

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 6:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OK, Nails, here's one I'm surprised you've ignored or missed. All kinds of possible directions one can run with it.

Romney has the endorsement of a top porn star. Is there a message to gain from this?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/03/jenna-jameson-mitt-romney-endorsement_n_1737769.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

roger — August 4, 2012 at 6:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 6:53 p.m

OK, now that's just stupid. A hydroelectric dam only counts if it was built after a certain date? What, water only works efficiently after 1975?

OK, think about this one (I know, my mind is wandering in this heat) ***Our Olympic athletes have to PAY TAXES on their medals!***

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/olympics-fourth-place-medal/winning-gold-medal-brings-9-000-tax-bill-171555961--oly.html

hawkeye — August 4, 2012 at 7:17 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawkeye,

Maybe you can make sense of this. Look at the bottom of page 2, for starters.

http://www.secstate.wa.gov/elections/initiatives/text/i937.pdf

It reads as though upgrades to current hydroelectric facilities would count. But I think the deck was probably deliberately stacked against the dams, what with requiring operation of the facility to commence after March 31, 1999.

As for the shutdown of the Condit Dam on the White Salmon, per Pacific Power's website last October -
"Dam removal was determined to be less costly to PacifiCorp customers than the fish passage that would be required for dam operation to be granted under a new federal hydroelectric power license."

So, windmills and fish are more important than determining the cheapest, most dependable power source.

roger — August 4, 2012 at 7:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger- Ignored it. Filed it with the...

**Bull Damages Arkansas Police Car While Trying To Mount Man**

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/bull-damages-arkansas-police-car-mount-man_n_1731370.html?utm_hp_ref=weird-news

Although it could be the start of the animal kingdom "rising up" to enact revenge for the molested penguins. :))

I figured Jenna hasn't thought this through too much. That or she knows Mittens will help her hang onto every penny she earns.

Jenna should to realize "she didn't build it". In part, she amassed her wealth on the backs of others. :))

Mitt Romney Aide Promises Crackdown On Porn

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/19/mitt-romney-aide-promises_n_1687210.html

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 7:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Time to get whatever kind of sea lion we have declared an endangered species. Otherwise, they'll probably take out the Bonneville Dam next.

Wait a minute - The California sea lion IS a protected species. Just not as protected as those pesky salmon it likes to eat. How could anyone not love these cute critters that look like a cross between a Labrador Retriever and a seal?

http://www.dfw.state.or.us/news/2009/february/022709.asp

roger — August 4, 2012 at 7:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OK, Nails - I read your post, and it trumps my porn star one. But I'm confused - it says "A bull in the mood for love damaged an Arkansas sheriff's patrol car when it tried to mount a man who was leading the animal across a yard."

The way this is written, the sheriff's car was trying to mount the man. And so the bull turned on the car. Sounds like some sort of bizarre love triangle to me.

Maybe we could send it to The Columbian reporters on the Political gossip page - they must be getting desperate for some good stuff, what with their recent article showing Mayor Tim and Mister Madore shirtless. Which seems to be a recurring theme over there, by the by.

roger — August 4, 2012 at 7:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


OK, this is a start. Freedom of speech, assembly, etc, should be curtailed when the intent is to cause harm. Same as shouting "Fire" in a theater. Congress has passed legislation banning protests 2 hours before and after military funerals, thereby effectively stopping the Westboro Baptist Church agenda.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/02/veterans-bill-military-funerals_n_1733080.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular

However, even if signed by Pres Obama, will it stand up? The Supreme Court recently upheld the Church's right to engage in this behavior, no matter how harmful the outcome.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.html

roger — August 4, 2012 at 8:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 9:01 a.m.

I am a Christian. I do not personally identify with any particular denomination.

To term premarital sex as evil I will agree would be extreme. I would use the term immoral. In the event that the sex leads to a child, and BOTH parents do not act responsibly to ensure that child is raised properly, that would be evil. I believe that to allow another couple to raise that child (adoption) if you are unwilling or unable to would be a responsible act.

I emphasize the would both, because we hear of so many cases where one parent will just refuse to be involved in a childs life, and even outright deny parentage. As has been discussed before, on a separate topic, it takes two to produce a child. Both paries share the responsibility for that childs care and upbringing.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 8:23 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"""We've finally went ahead of China with the gold medal count. 26 to 25!"""

Well that just cheesed out the efforts of young athletes who have dedicated their years of training just to make it to the World Olympics. What went wrong when the only goal for the Olympians is "who has the most gold medals???"

As far as I'm concerned, each one of the athletes...US Olympics OR Special Olympics...right down to the little child playing T-ball, swinging the bat for the first time are winners in my book.

goldenoldie — August 4, 2012 at 8:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Clever on your post at 4:21 p.m, Nailingit. How'd you do that??? Copy and paste??? (just teasin')

goldenoldie — August 4, 2012 at 8:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — August 4, 2012 at 12:26 p.m

This is an example of government interference in the private sector. Though not a regulation, the PTC affecting free enterprise. While it maybe a worthy goal to decrease prices for the consumer, it also doesn't allow for the regular economic influence in the production of products.

The government also has a habit of failing to keep things affordable through programs of assistance to businesses. The government funds (at least in part) medical research that produces medications that are to improve quality of life and defeat disease. So why are these medications still so expensive when they are put on the market?

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 8:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger @ 8;06- A lot of good things in this bill, addressing sexual assault, health care, VA loans. etc. Looks pretty good.

This Westboro thing. Nuts like these will find a way to circumvent and or become martyrs for "free speech". Although what they do is more than disgusting, this is a bit of a slippery slope.

Just sayin'

DBW-*and BOTH parents do not act responsibly to ensure that child is raised properly, that would be evil.*

Guess you're not much into single parent upbringing. **Evil it is now!** (Yoda quote)

Wild stuff coming from your end.....

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 8:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — August 4, 2012 at 8:06 p.m.

Not only has SCOTUS already given its opinion on this, the Phelps family is among the best legal teams in the country. That coupled with the massive number of lawsuits they win every time the government interferes with their protests, leads me to believe that the congress is just trying to give away our money.

frobert — August 4, 2012 at 8:49 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 1:02 p.m

Interesting information. My beliefs, however, are not based on the Koran. So information from Muslim sources will not affect my thinking.

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 1:24 p.m.

I will agree that just such a choice is legal, I believe I acknowledged that earlier. But there is a difference between legal and moral.

Let's consider the two situations that I "equate" (quite possibly the correct term to use)

Rape:
In this act the rapist forces himself into the most intimate relationship with a person that is unwilling for the purpose of his own gratification (be it sexual release or need for control or whatever reason). Sounds like selfishness to me.

Consensual sex:
This act involves two willing partners. They maybe looking to express their affection for each other, or just looking for individual gratification. Still selfishness.

I call affection selfishness in consensual sex. But I offer that there are other conditions to this equation. If you do not plan and take appropriate measures to avoid pregnancy, they you are only thinking of yourself (or yourselves when sharing affection). You aren't considering the future child that MAY (yes I recognize it isn't garaunteed) be concieved. Still selfishness.

Now if a child is concieved from either of these acts, then we are talking of a living human being. The child may be small and unrecognizable as human, but still human and living. Soul or no soul, to abort this pregnancy is killing this life.

Why is this chosen? In the event of rape or incest, perhaps the mother is concerned with the continuing mental trauma stemming from the act to which she was a victim. Abortion is an option that may make her recovery easier. Selfish.

In consensual sex, one or both decide that they do not want to take on the responsibility of the child that their act produced. They could have thought of it ahead of time and taken appropriate measure to prevent the pregnancy. Instead, they will abort. Selfish.

I do not even humor myself to think my explanation will change anyone's mind. I merely am showing how I see the situation. We will most likely never agree. If you see this as extremist then I will wear it as a badge of honor. But as I said before, I will not, nor will I condone, evil for evil. It would be equally wrong to try to stop these murders through violence on persons or property.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 9:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"What went wrong when the only goal for the Olympians is "who has the most gold medals???" -- goldenoldie — August 4, 2012 at 8:34 p.m.

Don't know, Goldie. I know this was an issue with Hitler at the '36 Olympics. And, as I used to say when recruiting for our PTC team - if they're calling it a race, then the idea is to win.

Congrats to Michael Phelps - will anyone ever top 18 golds and 22 total?

Congrats to Gabby, for her stunning performance winning the gold in gymnastics all around.

Congrats to Kim Rhode, who won an individual medal skeet shooting in her 5th consecutive Olympics - the first US athlete to do so.

Congrats to Kayla Harrison, who won the US's first ever gold in judo.

Congrats to 17 y.o. Missy Franklin - four golds and a bronze in swimming.

Congrats to Jamie Lynn Gray, who set a world record in the prelims on her way to the gold in 50 meter target shooting.

And finally, congrats to Ding Chen, of China, who set an Olympic record winning the gold in the 20 race walk. And, as someone who has both run marathons and pretended to be a race walker - the latter is much harder.

roger — August 4, 2012 at 9:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert- *That coupled with the massive number of lawsuits they win every time the government interferes with their protests, leads me to believe that the congress is **just trying to give away our money.***

Given that 202 Congressmen are attorney's, they could be just trying to take our money! :)

nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 9:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal



nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 9:16 p.m.

Too many people assume that because of their extremist religious views, that the Phelps family is stupid. They are brilliant attorneys, they will take it to the Supreme Court and win. Although I do not share their opinions or even their religion, I support their right to be homophobic bigots.

frobert — August 4, 2012 at 9:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 8:49 p.m.

OK, I will not say a person is automatically a degenerate or otherwised plagued based solely on being raised in a single parent household.

But I am sure we can all agree that the single parent raising said child faces a challenge as opposed to having the help of the other parent. (Perhaps the other parent isn't the greatest of people to raise a child, so I will not say they should be present)

Again, the child is produced by two people and both have a responsibility. If you don't want to be there to raise the child, fine, the child is most likely better off. But you should at least assist in providing for this child (child support). I know there are the "deadbeat dads" out there doing all they can to not pay it. That is also reprhensible.

For the sake of not offending anyone, I will add: There are cases where it is the father that will be raising the child and the mother is the deadbeat. Everything I am saying applies to this woman as well. Being irresponsible doesn't discriminate.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 9:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 4, 2012 at 9:41 a.m.

On this note, I must agree with fro.

I am not going to condone any of the mentioned commentators offensive language toward other. Calling someone you disagree with a "slut" or any other sort of term is offensive. It does nothing to further the discussion. And only perpetuates the creation of political sycophants.

But fro is correct. Ms. Maddow is a commentator, not a reporter. Like Behar or O'Reilly.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 10:39 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 9:12 p.m.

"**I will agree that just such a choice is legal, I believe I acknowledged that earlier. But there is a difference between legal and moral.**"

You are so full of it. Both legal and moral were INVENTED by humans, pushed by humans ans decided by humans. It's just different sides of the same coin.

hawkeye — August 4, 2012 at 10:46 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I am sorry if my thoughts seem sporadic, but re-reading shows areas where I failed to add an appropriate comment.

My views seem extremist, and apparently turn people away from religion?

A possible reason:

People would prefer to seek their own self gratification, without regard to the consequence to others. In this case, the other that suffers the consequences is the unborn child.

Even some pagan religious views are based on the premise that you can do as you please so long as it harms no one else. Abortion kills unborn children. Is this not considered harmful?

I repeat: Selfishness.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 10:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 10:39 p.m.

Joy Behar is an American comedian, writer, actress and a co-host on the ABC talk show The View. She hosted The Joy Behar Show on HLN from 2009 to 2011.

Rachel Maddow, on the other hand is a Rhodes Scholar with a B.A. in Public Policy. I would say that they are VERY different.

hawkeye — August 4, 2012 at 10:55 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 10:51 p.m.

"Abortion kills unborn children"

Sorry but until they are born, they are not children.

hawkeye — August 4, 2012 at 11 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Hawk-

The differentiation between what is moral and immoral will be a matter left to ones personal beliefs. These will not necessarily be reflected in the law.

Suicide bombing terrorists believe they are acting in a way that is moral and just. That is their belief, whether you agree or not.

I find it amazing the passion I have inspired on this issue. Understand that I am not trying to condemn anyone for not believing as I do. I am just telling why I believe the way I do. I disagree with the law.
Others here have expressed disagreement with other existing laws (scheduling of marijuana for example) and I do not see them attacked with such passion.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 11:01 p.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 10:51 p.m.

It is interesting that you used the Christians term "pagan" as it is the term that Christians used to justify the slaughter of women and children who believed differently. "Pagan" religions have names, The Old ways, Wicca and Hindu just to name a few. I would also contend that many of these "Pagan" religions have higher moral standards then most Christians follow.

frobert — August 4, 2012 at 11:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


hawkeye — August 4, 2012 at 10:55 p.m.

What does her scolorship have to do with it? Charles Krauthammer has a more impressive academic record, does that make his commentary into "reporting"?

frobert — August 4, 2012 at 11:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**ROGER**

haven't been able to keep up with ... anything lately, including the olympics.

tell me, just how did the hajib-wearing muslim blue-belt do in judo?

DeeLittle — August 4, 2012 at 11:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal


What's quite amusing about this word play with Rachel being called a reporter. Personally I think of her as a journalist/commentary type of person among other titles. I said great reporting. (because she was reporting on some investigative journalism she'd done) That's all! I never classified her as a reporter. :)))))

I barbecued cheeseburgers today. I'm a cook! I swept my garage and locked the door yesterday. I'm a custodian! I manage to lock my doors before bedtime. I'm a Security Manager! I did some writing today. I'm a writer! I mowed my lawn two days ago and watered my garden. I'm a landscaper! I took a dump and flushed the toilet. I'm in waste management!

Bush is a funny guy. So he's a comedian! Cheaney is a butt hole. So he's a sphincter!

(the last two are true, but still...)

frobert & danabwoodley- Feel free to label her as you please! :))

DBW- *I find it amazing the passion I have inspired on this issue.*

Don't over sell yourself. You're mistaking passion for people being taken back because your views sound so damn weird!

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 12:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Regardless of education or employment background, what they do is not news reporting, it is political commentary.

danabwoodley — August 5, 2012 at 12:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


LOL!

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 12:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Wow, I didn't realize the word pagan was offensive. People I have known that practice such religions also refer to them selves as pagan.

Hawk, a young human being is referred to as a child. Isn't a child in the womb a young human being? VERY young, yes.

I won't try to blow smoke. There are many who profess to be Christian, but do not demonstrate very righteous living. I won't even try to claim I am a perfect example. But I do try.

I have merely tried to show the reasoning behind my belief. Just as each of you have your own reasoning. I am sure my views sound wierd for two possible reasons. 1) they differ from your own. 2) you are afraid to admit you find something valid in my reasons.

No I am not asking that you change. You beliefs and opinions are your own perogative. And I am not the one who will judge your life.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 5, 2012 at 12:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal



**DANA**

had a similiar conversation on the fb side w/a gay-marriage supporter. my position is that gvt get out of the marriage business entirely and leave 'married' to the religious. then everyone would have a civil union recognized by the secular gvt, and marriage would retain it's meaning both literally and symbolically.

he said he goes to a christian church that marries gay members, and asked if i supported that. i told him that, if the church is a REAL christian church, not just something organized to 'marry' gays, i have no say in the matter.

that's between him and God. being catholic, i have an obligation to remind him of the seriousness of ignoring parts of the bible, and to warn him to be very careful in doing so. after that, it's none of my business.

DeeLittle — August 5, 2012 at 1:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


roger — August 4, 2012 at 2:32 p.m.

Reading this post, we appear to be on the same wavelength in part. But I believe you may have misinterpreted part of what I was saying.

We agree on the funding for contraception. But let me clarify that I am not opposed to the use of contraception. If you want to indulge in the activity then you have the right to protect yourself from disease, and prevent pregnancy if you wish. You are correct, no life is ended as a result of preventing the conception. Thus no murder, and no evil.

I don't want to be forced (by law) to have to pay for someone to use contraception.

I am sure someone will try to apply some reasoning to show I contradict myself regarding how I view contraception vs. my view on abortion. Have at it. That is typical when someone has expressed an opinion you don't agree with.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 5, 2012 at 1:55 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Dee-

You illustrate something in your comment that many lose sight of. One of the great things in our world today is diversity.

There is a variety out there. Different religions and different beliefs. These differences help to keep life interesting.

NEWSFLASH-
While some may claim the same faith, they may not agree on some things. That is why we have so many different denominations within a broader religion.

Even if you claim a certain sort of political view (such as conservative or liberal) not everyone claiming that classification will agree on absolutely every single issue (this would be what I term as sycophants).

There is a difference between moral and legal. When something is written to be prohibited or permitted (no matter that it is written by man) that would be considered a legal matter. A moral matter is determined within an individual based upon belief. The two will not always agree.

Two areas of example (yes previously stated I know), and how they can create quite a dilema.

Marijuana scheduling:
Marijuana is a schedule I drug, and is illegal for recreational use. Within the scope of your own morals, you feel the law is wrong, and you choose to indulge in it's recreational use. What you are doing is acceptable by what you deem as moral, but is against the law.

Abortion:
According to law, this is legal. For you, this is actually immoral. Following your morals, you choose not to engage in abortions. You are not breaking the law.

Like I say, quite a dilema. I am in no position to determine what is right or wrong for others, legally or morally (I am not a judge in the courts, nor the Creator). I do have opinions about them, however. Since I am human and living in this world, I have an interest in what the law says, and to follow (not engaging in prohibited activities), and to take exception when legal matters affect me (yes, selfish, but I did say I wasn't perfect).

I will allow you to have your own morals. I will not interfere unless you push them to infringe upon my own. I am interested in when someone goes against the law, especially when it affects me and my family (testing for welfare recipients).

I am sure someone will find contradictions here, but only because expressing my opinion runs counter to their own, and since they have such a need to be seen by everyone to have the correct beliefs, will have to try to tear down mine. I may be high minded, but such practice is narrow minded.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 5, 2012 at 2:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**DANA**

re. contraception

if you're talking about birth-control pills, you're wrong.

pills don't prevent fertilization of the egg. these meds prevent a fertilized egg from attaching to the uterine wall.

just a very-early abortion. that's the crux of the issue between obama and catholics. it's human, it's alive, it's growing and it's a child.

regardless of how long that life has existed, abortion/contraception kills a human child.

DeeLittle — August 5, 2012 at 3:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 4, 2012 at 10:51 p.m.

As you read DeeLittle's comment of 3:34 am, you will see there's others who have similar beliefs as you. Regarding your comment at 10:51 pm...

well written and I agree.

..

Hawkeye, in regards to your comment at 11 p.m., you are entitled to your opinion just as those of us who disagree with you are entitled to ours. Just when is a fertilized human egg considered a baby??? Well, that all depends on what you consider a human function. Here's just a bit of info for you:

During the first week and continuing through to the second week...the blastocyte (developing fertile embryo) reaches the womb and attaches to wall of uterus. Once attached, the blood cells, kidney cells, and nerve cells begin to develop.

At three weeks, in a fetus...the central nervous system begins to develop as does the heart beat.

Five Weeks...Nose and Lip formation begins. Brain, heart and spinal cord are developing with fluid from brain flowing to spine.

Six to seven weeks...Eyes and ears develop structure and are forming. Heart develops a regular rhythm.

Eight Weeks...Major organs develop. Hands and feet are seen (the same hands and feet that new parents will eventually hold in their hand, amazed at the size), baby reactive to it's surroundings. Male Hormones begin to develop in male fetus. Lungs begin to form.

Nine Weeks...hair follicles begin to form. Elbows and toes are visible. ALL essential organs have begun to form.

Ten Weeks(according to Medlineplus)...end of embryonic stage. Now considered a fetus.

14-16 weeks...baby can suck on thumb, swallow and make breathing movements.

Week Sixteen...determination of sex of fetus is distinguishable.

Weeks 19-21...the baby can hear.

In my opinion...once the egg has been fertilized, it already has a decided DNA structure and is a human...but then again, that's just my humble opinion. Glad we can agree to disagree.

goldenoldie — August 5, 2012 at 6:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Come to think of it...I believe scientists might actually be able to decide the DNA of a child even before the fertilization. Either way though...to me...once fertilization has occurred, the wonders of development of a human and their traits begin and the fetus is indeed a human.

goldenoldie — August 5, 2012 at 6:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Another scorcher today, folks. Stay cool, enjoy the pool, don't be a fool and keep hydrated!!!

goldenoldie — August 5, 2012 at 6:49 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Read Will's column and had to wonder were he's been the last couple of years. He's keen on the election of a teabagger sinator from Texas-why is that not surprising? He's all about these "principled" folks forming a caucus, and adhering to the Constitution, blah, blah. This guy, and ones like him, are going to DC to do one thing-push his ideal;ology-driven agenda, period, the end. No priniples, no compromise, no nuthin'. Just an agenda.

mrd — August 5, 2012 at 7:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mrd — August 5, 2012 at 7:34 a.m.

So what your saying is this guy (and ones like him) are going to DC to do the one things that every single other of the 535 members are going to DC to do?

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 5, 2012 at 7:45 a.m. ( | suggest removal


"*regardless of how long that life has existed, abortion/contraception kills a human child.*"

A Defense of Abortion
Judith Jarvis Thomson
Philosophy and Public Affairs, Vol. 1, No. 1. (Autumn, 1971), pp. 47-66.

http://philoscience.unibe.ch/bib2lib/pdf/gedankenexperimente/Thomson_abortion/Thomson_abortion.pdf

40 years on, and still far more relevant.

mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 7:51 a.m. ( | suggest removal


basil-

I looked at the link you posted and began to read. I got to the part discussing the morality of disconnecting from the violinist. Honestly, what I was reading offended me (perhaps not a rational reaction, but my reaction no less).

I will agree that a woman can choose what is done with her body, afterall, in most cases (with rape being the exception) she freely chose to indulge in the act that led to the pregnancy in the first place, right?

She made that choice, and the pregnancy resulted. So we will allow the choice to end the life of the child?

We could continue to go rounds about what point in the pregnancy/birthing process that the creature growing in the womb constitutes a person. I would suspect that you, basil, even have links to credible scientist that will attest to when this distinction is to be made. With research others could probably find links to scientific journals that agree with our belief as well. Then it would become an issue of whether or not the reader determines the source as credible.

I believe this is an issue in which the only fact that can be agreed upon is that it involves a pregnancy. Beyond that, it's all an individuals personal beliefs.

RWTP

danabwoodley — August 5, 2012 at 8:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*I would suspect that you, basil, even have links to credible scientist that will attest to when this distinction is to be made. With research others could probably find links to scientific journals that agree with our belief as well.*

danabwoodley — August 5, 2012 at 8:15 a.m.

When you have some evidence, then present it.

And making assumptions about others' possible evidence? Why? Again, present your argument - with the evidence that supports it.

Don't attempt to be a frobert clone.

- -

"began to read..... what I was reading offended me "

I read through your claims (and the others on this forum) in an effort to understand the thinking. That you can't honor the intellectual effort someone puts in to share their thinking......

mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 8:56 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Koch Brothers, GOP Mega Donors, Help Bankroll Religious Conservative's 2012 Efforts**

A conservative group led by longtime political activist Ralph Reed has budgeted $10 million for a major 2012 election push to turn out the religious right and block a second term for President Barack Obama, a top executive with his organization told the Huffington Post.

The Faith and Freedom Coalition's effort, which will include voter registration drives at NASCAR races in Florida, Virginia and other key swing states, is part of a much broader attempt to reactivate millions of socially conservative voters to not only defeat Obama but help some favorite conservative congressional candidates.

On the domestic front, Land predicted that many evangelicals and social conservatives would "want to bury Obamacare in a lead coffin with a stake through its heart and cover its grave with garlic," calling the law, "a codification and personification of pro-abortion policies."

read more @

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/05/mega-donors-bankrolling-religious-right_n_1735337.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 9:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal



#What Does The Bible, and History, Tell Us About Marriage?

Posted by Greg Laden

Looking to Middle Range societies such as those in the bible (which is among the weakest sources of information available for human culture compared to the vast ethnographic record of Anthropology) is like looking at Spring Break in Panama City to understand family life in America.

http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/08/04/what-does-the-bible-and-history-tell-us-about-marriage/

mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 9:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


.....and I thought this election was all about the economy........:)))))

Nothing but a radicalized, ghost of Jerry Falwell, gay bashing, choice hating, fear mongering, backwoods yo yo's who are afraid of multiculturalism and all of the above.

The debates will be telling, the RNC convention this month will be a circus, and President Obama will get another 4 years.

Republicans never learn.....

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 9:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal



mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.

The bible tells a christian everything they need to know about marriage, because marriage is a religious institution, not a governmental one. Government should not be involved in marriage in any way. We base the standards on Abrahamic faith, and than complain that it is based on Abrahamic faith. Get rid of governmental controls on marriage altogether, allow all religions to practice their faith, not just a select few.

frobert — August 5, 2012 at 10:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Sir Basil Seal,

You couldn't explain birth control to the people of Azania; what makes you believe you'll have more success this time around?

roger — August 5, 2012 at 10:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


**Shooting at Wisconsin Sikh temple**

(CNN) -- At least one gunman attacked worshippers at a Sikh temple in the Milwaukee suburb of Oak Creek, Wisconsin, on Sunday, leaving at least one dead and two wounded while police converged on the site.

Some people are believed to be trapped inside the Sikh Temple of Wisconsin, and at least one gunman may still be inside, Alderman Dan Jakubczyk told CNN.
"As far as I know, it is still an active situation," Jakubczyk said.

Carolyn Bellin, a spokeswoman for Milwaukee's Froedtert Hospital, said one of two men brought there from the incident was in surgery early Sunday morning, while the other was in the surgical intensive care unit.

There was no immediate comment from police in Oak Creek, on the south side of Milwaukee. But at least one body was visible lying in the parking lot, and Kathy Moran, a nursing supervisor at Columbia St. Mary's hospital in Milwaukee, told CNN that early reports suggested between eight to 20 people had been wounded.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/05/us/wisconsin-temple-shooting/index.html

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 11:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


A Sikh (/ˈsiːk/ or /ˈsɪk/; Punjabi: ਸਿੱਖ, sikkh [ˈsɪkkʰ]) is a follower of Sikhism. It primarily originated in the 15th century in the Punjab region of South Asia. The term "Sikh" has its origin in Sanskrit term शिष्य (śiṣya), meaning "disciple, student" or शिक्ष (śikṣa), meaning "instruction".[24][25] A Sikh is a disciple/subject of the Guru.
According to Article I of the "Rehat Maryada" (the Sikh code of conduct and conventions), a Sikh is defined as "any human being who faithfully believes in One Immortal Being; ten Gurus, from Guru Nanak Dev to Sri Guru Gobind Singh; Sri Guru Granth Sahib; the teachings of the ten Gurus and the baptism bequeathed by the tenth Guru; and who does not owe allegiance to any other religion".[26] Sikhs believe in the equality of humankind, the concept of universal brotherhood of man and One Supreme God (Ik Onkar).

Most male Sikhs have Singh (lion) and most female Sikhs Kaur (princess) as their surname. Sikhs who have undergone the khanḍe-kī-pahul, the Sikh initiation ceremony, can also be recognized by the Five Ks: uncut hair (Kesh); an iron/steel bracelet (kara); a Kirpan, a sword tucked in a gatra strap; Kachehra, a type of special shorts; and a Kanga, a small comb to keep the hair clean. Male Sikhs cover their hair with a turban, while female Sikhs may wear a turban or a scarf.

The greater Punjab region is the historical homeland of the Sikhs, although significant communities exist around the world.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sikh

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 11:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*tell me, just how did the hajib-wearing muslim blue-belt do in judo?*

DeeLittle — August 4, 2012 at 11:47 p.m.

Here ya go babe. You can quit being terrified about someone *different* with regards to this event.

**Saudi women's Olympic judo bout over in 82 seconds**

LONDON — It was over in little more than a minute, but it will go down as one of the most memorable moments of the London Games.

A young Saudi judo fighter's decisive defeat on the mat Friday is being hailed as a victory for women in the conservative Gulf kingdom, a step that would have seemed unimaginable if thousands of fans at the sprawling ExCel Center and millions at home hadn't seen it with their own eyes.

Wojdan Ali Seraj Abdulrahim Shahrkhani was one of just two women competing for Saudi Arabia at the games, the first time the Gulf state has sent female athletes at all. And she was only able to compete in judo after a compromise between Olympic organizers, the
international judo federation and Saudi officials that cleared the way for her to wear a modified hijab.

http://www.portalangop.co.ao/motix/en_us/noticias/internacional/2012/7/31/Saudi-women-Olympic-judo-bout-over-seconds,584c80d7-4751-4eac-8e9a-33e279de01f0.html

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 11:36 a.m. ( | suggest removal



*For what it's worth...Fox News is reporting witnesses saying a/the shooter is a white male in his thirties...*

The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel is reporting that between 20 and 30 people have been shot, and that hostages are being held, according a text message sent to a Journal Sentinel reporter.

There are more than a dozen ambulances parked outside the temple, and police have corralled media and a handful of bystanders to clear out from the area near the temple.

Sukhwindar Nagr, of Racine, said he called his brother-in-law's phone and a priest at the temple answered and told him that his brother-in-law had been shot, along with three priests. The priest also said women and children were hiding in closets in the temple, Nagr said.

Sikh rights groups have reported a rise in bias attacks since the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. The Washington-based Sikh Coalition has reported more than 700 incidents in the U.S. since 9/11, which advocates blame on anti-Islamic sentiment. Sikhs don't practice the same religion as Muslims, but their long beards and turbans often cause them to be mistaken for Muslims, advocates say.

Sikhism is a monotheistic faith that was founded in South Asia more than 500 years ago. It has roughly 27 million followers worldwide. Observant Sikhs do not cut their hair; male followers often cover their heads with turbans - which are considered sacred - and refrain from shaving their beards.

There are roughly 500,000 Sikhs in the U.S., according to estimates. The majority worldwide live in India.

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-201_162-57486965/shooting-at-sikh-temple-in-wis-at-least-7-dead/

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 12:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Fed up with what he says is growing extremism toward the far right, former Clark County Republican chairman Brent Boger says he's done with the party.

Boger -- a longtime vocal Republican and three-year-plus head of the local board -- stepped down from his Republican precinct committee officer duties in late July, and pulled his reelection bid.

Many of the hardline Tea Party members in the local party fail to accommodate a spectrum of views about how to be conservative, Boger said.

"I basically say to them -- if they give me a chance -- 'What makes you the repository of Republican orthodoxy?'" Boger said.

"I agree with the Republican Party on economic issues," he added in an email. "But my views are tempered by reality and a willingness to take the world as it is and not as I think it should be. I think that is missing from many on the far right in the GOP."

http://www.columbian.com/news/2012/au...

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 12:32 p.m. ( | suggest removal



nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 1:08 p.m.

It's funny when you are posting about hate and ignorance, you never seem to mention life long liberal democrat Fred Phelps or the westboro baptist church that he founded.

frobert — August 5, 2012 at 1:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal



**GOP insider: Religion destroyed my party**

*A veteran Republican says the religious right has taken over, and turned his party into anti-intellectual nuts*

Having observed politics up close and personal for most of my adult lifetime, I have come to the conclusion that the rise of politicized religious fundamentalism may have been the key ingredient in the transformation of the Republican Party. Politicized religion provides a substrate of beliefs that rationalizes—at least in the minds of its followers—all three of the GOP’s main tenets: wealth worship, war worship, and the permanent culture war.

Religious cranks ceased to be a minor public nuisance in this country beginning in the 1970s and grew into a major element of the Republican rank and file. Pat Robertson’s strong showing in the 1988 Iowa presidential caucus signaled the gradual merger of politics and religion in the party. Unfortunately, at the time I mostly underestimated the implications of what I was seeing. It did strike me as oddly humorous that a fundamentalist staff member in my congressional office was going to take time off to convert the heathen in Greece, a country that had been overwhelmingly Christian for almost two thousand years. I recall another point, in the early 1990s, when a different fundamentalist GOP staffer said that dinosaur fossils were a hoax. As a mere legislative mechanic toiling away in what I held to be a civil rather than ecclesiastical calling, I did not yet see that ideological impulses far different from mine were poised to capture the party of Lincoln.

The results of this takeover are all around us: If the American people poll more like Iranians or Nigerians than Europeans or Canadians on questions of evolution, scriptural inerrancy, the presence of angels and demons, and so forth, it is due to the rise of the religious right, its insertion into the public sphere by the Republican Party, and the consequent normalizing of formerly reactionary beliefs. All around us now is a prevailing anti-intellectualism and hostility to science. Politicized religion is the sheet anchor of the dreary forty-year-old culture wars.

read more @

http://www.salon.com/2012/08/05/republicans_slouching_toward_theocracy/

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 2:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


537 comments! Egad!

Here's a break video that will make everyone laugh, but Nailingit, this one's for you:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mNZUkW2UrrI

manthou — August 5, 2012 at 2:15 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Your comment has about much to do with what we are talking about as attempting to relate crazytrain to Casey Jones or nailing it to a hammer or Roger to a radio.

However, in that same thread, almost a year old, does point out some of frober's modus operandi as I posted this:

frobert — August 17, 2011 at 6:13 p.m.

*M.I.T. and a couple other...IPCC and most universities give us only one side and suppress information counter to their intended goals, that is how politics works.*

Actually, you may be rather misinformed on IPCC. Essentially, they are doing a review of the literature. If you look in the bibs, you'll find many of the pieces of research and many of the 'skeptical' scientists' work has been included in the findings.

What you are ascribing to 'politics' is actually a case of the vast majority of the science pointing in one direction. That's the replication and repeatability part.

I think there are a couple of pundits out there who try to make a case that science is being stifled and such; but they offer few facts in support. Perhaps that is what you've accepted as 'proof'?

In any case, you say "M.I.T. and a couple other.." have data that counters what I listed above; we note you aren't making an effort to show how my sources are in error.

mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Relating to
roger — August 5, 2012 at 10:15 a.m

mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 2:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


manthou- Thanks! I needed a good chuckle! :)

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 2:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 2:27 p.m.

You had to go back a year to come up with something you thought you had a chance of refuting?

How about coming up with that list of historians that are "rolling over in their graves"

Proof that republicans aren't republicans.

Proof that a president needs legislative approval to reschedule marijuana.

frobert — August 5, 2012 at 3:40 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 2:29 p.m.

Touche. Well done, Sir.

roger — August 5, 2012 at 4:08 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Or were you meaning something other than Neil Rogers?

roger — August 5, 2012 at 4:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**The Coming Obama Landslide?**

Liberals don’t want to jinx it. It terrifies the right. And the press would prefer a nail-biter. But the fact is that finding Romney’s path to victory is getting harder every day.

There’s a secret lurking behind everything you’re reading about the upcoming election, a secret that all political insiders know—or should—but few are talking about, most likely because it takes the drama out of the whole business.

The secret is the electoral college, and the fact is that the more you look at it, the more you come to conclude that Mitt Romney has to draw an inside straight like you’ve never ever seen in a movie to win this thing. This is especially true now that it seems as if Pennsylvania isn’t really up for grabs. Romney’s paths to 270 are few.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/election.html

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 8:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal/others- Here is the Richard Muller interview as promised.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns/msnbc_tv-rachel_maddow_show/#48409332

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 8:35 p.m. ( | suggest removal



Gotta love Stevie

hawkeye — August 5, 2012 at 11:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 17, 2011 at 6:13 p.m.

frobert — August 5, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.

frobert — July 18, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.

Let us know when you've found what you consider the science that supports your claims. All we've seen so far is you denying that the well established science is valid.

With no alternative explanation that fits to the current observations.

Or the observations for the past 100+ years.

From scientists working in many fields.

From observations from every continent on Earth.

From scientists from virtually every continent.

From scientists living under a range of governments.

Science agreed to by every major scientific organization.

And all you bring is a denial of that science.

Still waiting....

\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 11:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


In what should be the most celebrated of space shots, the Curiosity has landed! By far and away, the most unique and difficult landing ever has been done. Congrats to NASA! Now for exploration of Europpa, one of Jupiter's moons, let's go for it! Water under a frozen atmosphere, what a challenge. Not to mention the distance-if Mars takes 14 minutes for a signal, Jupiter must take a longer time. Go NASA!!

mrd — August 5, 2012 at 11:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal- frobert seems to have a backlog of tasks to engage in. He still needs to read/comprehend the definition of a social conservative.

mrd- Exciting stuff! Sometimes I try and imagine the accomplishments in space exploration my kids will be a witness to. Mind blowing!

nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 11:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.

I took a moment to consider, and I realized you were right about something. It was rather unfair of me to not finish reading the piece. So I swallowed my disgust and pushed through.

I found that the piece as a whole is even worse than what I imagined in the first few pages I had read. I will not go into detail of my argument against the entire thing line by line, that would be a small book in itself.

I will say that analogies used through out were outrageous. Portions in which the writer compared a child to a tenant renting a dwelling, or even an intruder I found extremely revolting. We are talking about a child. The child didn't enter by his own volition.

And the writer is wrong about one assertion. With the exception of rape, if a woman engages in a sexual act, and isn't using a proven 100% effective form of contraception, then you willingly acknowledge that the possibility exists that a pregnancy can occur. You did "invite the child in", and offer the use of your own body to support it. Unless you are like the characters in "Blue Lagoon" who never had anyone to teach them about sex and reproduction, the you are aware of where babies come from.

basil, you claim this piece is relevant. I will agree. It is relevant if one requires outside acceptance of the selfish choices they make so they don't have to feel guilt over them.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 3:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 3:57 a.m

Care to give examples of "proven 100% effective form of contraception"?

langenthal — August 6, 2012 at 5:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 9:18 a.m.

I read your link on this post as well. Not sure what to make of it.

The title is misleading. The body really doesn't discuss the Bible teaching about marriage. The only thing it does to relate the two is mentioning that the Bible discusses that people were married.

The body, for the most part, barely even touches the subject of marriage until the final two or three paragraphs.

The final line, in my opinion, disqualified the entire piece as a serious scientific analysis, though. Or is it common for serious academics to refer to a matter put into law with a term so blatantly less than scientific. (I am not repeating the term here since this is a public forum. Not all may consider the term profanity, but I do. I wouldn't want my children using the word.)

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 6:11 a.m. ( | suggest removal


langenthal-

Truthfully, and I am certain everyone will agree, there is only one method of birth control that is 100% effective and that would be abstinence. (No I am not going to try to preach this to everyone as the only way to live.)

A lot of other forms that are in use today have very high effective rates, but do not reach 100%.

That is really the point I was trying to make. A person makes the choice (again, except in the case of rape) to engage in sexual activity. They may be using contraception, but should also be aware that it isn't 100% effective. You accept this, so yes, you are "inviting" it in.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 6:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 5, 2012 at 8:56 a.m.

Basil-

The reason I even mentioned linking to "credible sources" is because I made an assumption. The assumption, base upon your posting prior, was that you disagreed with the position I have stated. If this was an error then please let me know.

Also, know the affinity you have for linking to sources of evidence, I just assumed (again, perhaps in error) that you had already done research into your position and had appropriate links already available to post.

Now I will agree that ones position on some issues will hold better in the presence of specific facts (ie welfare fraud). There are some, however, that are formed on the basis of faith (determining the point when "life" begins). If you do not agree with that, then please, provide your evidence that proves me incorrect.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 6:31 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*basil, you claim this piece is relevant. I will agree. It is relevant if one requires outside acceptance of the selfish choices they make so they don't have to feel guilt over them.*

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 3:57 a.m.

Actually, the whole point of the essay is that NEITHER YOU nor I have any say in a woman's right to make choices regarding her body.

That you still try to frame abortion as murder in an effort to gain that control; That you still try to equate becoming pregnant as a 'cost' of having sex shows the efforts you and others attempt to maintain that patriarchy.

Or, to make it a bit more contemporary, what you and your ilk are attempting is a continuation of the efforts to prevent basic human rights from applying to women.

Much like the efforts to prevent the right to vote in the early 20th Century.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 6:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal


And that is why Greg Laden's (http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2012/08/04/what-does-the-bible-and-history-tell-us-about-marriage/)word choice works in the context of the essay

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 6:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Now I will agree that ones position on some issues will hold better in the presence of specific facts (ie welfare fraud). There are some, however, that are formed on the basis of faith (determining the point when "life" begins). If you do not agree with that, then please, provide your evidence that proves me incorrect.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 6:31 a.m.

Again, you are couching the argument for controlling a woman's body by attempting to introduce arguments that are immaterial.

And even if you want to make that the substance of your argument, then you'd need to support it. At this point, you are attempting to use a patriarchal position to justify your claims

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 6:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


At no point did I say a woman doesn't have a right to make a choice. I have agreed that she does have a legal right. I have stated that I do not see it as morally correct.

I understand that a woman has rights (I don't feel western women should recieve treatment that women tend to recieve under sharia law). But is this child a living human? If so, do they have no rights?

The author of this piece tries to convince the reader that the woman is not responsible to care for this creature that grows within her because she didn't invite it in. I believe I illustrated that she did, in fact, send the invitation.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 7:34 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Basil

We are still waiting for you to support your unsupportable arguments.

List of historian that are "rolling over in their graves"

Proof that republicans aren't republicans

Proof that legislative approval is required to change drug scheduling.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 7:41 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 5, 2012 at 11:43 p.m.

Reading comprehension? Even your source maintained that there was no correlation between "social conservatives" and conservatives. If a "social conservative" believes in expansion of governmental authority to achieve their agenda, they are not a traditional conservative, the two are mutually exclusive.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 7:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal



frobert — August 17, 2011 at 6:13 p.m.

frobert — July 18, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.

frobert — August 5, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 7:41 a.m.

Let us know when you've found what you consider the science that supports your claims. All we've seen so far is you denying that the well established science is valid.

With no alternative explanation that fits to the current observations.

Or the observations for the past 100+ years.

From scientists working in many fields.

From observations from every continent on Earth.

From scientists from virtually every continent.

From scientists living under a range of governments.

Science agreed to by every major scientific organization.

And all you bring is a denial of that science.

Still waiting....

\\\\\\\\

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 7:41 a.m.

Your complaints are based on misunderstandings based on having too dark of lenses in those libertarian-tinted glasses.

Or maybe a reading comprehension problem.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 8:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 6:48 a.m.

I did not refer to the pregnancy as a "cost", nor a "consequence", nor a "punishment".

I have referred to it as a possible result.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 8:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*At no point did I say a woman doesn't have a right to make a choice.*

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 7:34 a.m.

Then there is nothing relevant to the rest of your argument.

Glad to see that you will allow women to have that right.

Gee, doesn't that sound an awful lot like men voting on whether women should have the right to vote?

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 8:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 8:06 a.m.

Another example of picking apart a post to completely forget the entire point.

I may be a RWTP. You sir, demonstrate that you are typical liberal, not willing to use the entire context. Just enough that your point is made.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 8:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 8:06 a.m.

"...if you want to be able to engage in sex without pregnancy, you should be willing to pay for it yourself."

"You did "invite the child in", and offer the use of your own body to support it."

"she freely chose to indulge in the act that led to the pregnancy in the first place, right?

She made that choice, and the pregnancy resulted. "

"The reason I think that abortion is such a heated issue is because it is used entirely too often as a means of contraception."

"
We could continue to go rounds about what point in the pregnancy/birthing process that the creature growing in the womb constitutes a person."

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 8:13 a.m. ( | suggest removal



*Another example of picking apart a post to completely forget the entire point.*

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 8:10 a.m.

????????????????????????????????????????????

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 8:16 a.m. ( | suggest removal


I believe I have demonstrated a willingness to agree, even with those I fundamentally disagree with. Even if I don't agree with the validity of the law, I will agree that the law exists.

Basil has repeatedly demonstrated he is not willing to even consider that an opposing opinion can be valid, even if only to the person stating that opinion. He will press for "proof", but refuse to even answer a direct question. He will use portions of a post to make his point, or attempt to make the poster appear a fool.

Basil, I challenge you. State an opinion of your own. Provide sources to support your belief.

You want to make yourself seem superior in every way. You do this by tearing down others. Try standing on your own merits.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 8:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*He will use portions of a post to make his point, or attempt to make the poster appear a fool.*

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 8:18 a.m.

And your examples?

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 8:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Is someone playing hooky today? It *is* the 6th, afterall.

I'm thinking the abortion thread has been pretty much beat dead.

What are your opinions on cannabis, DBW (recreational and medicinal use)? I saw where you noted marihuana is a schedule I drug, and therefore illegal. So, I suppose we might speak of the immorality of its scheduling. And stuff...

Drift — August 6, 2012 at 8:46 a.m. ( | suggest removal


#We Are the Patriots

by Gore Vidal

I belong to a minority that is now one of the smallest in the country and, with every day, grows smaller. I am a veteran of World War II. And I can recall thinking, when I got out of the Army in 1946, Well, that's that. We won. And those who come after us will never need do this again. Then came the two mad wars of imperial vanity--Korea and Vietnam. They were bitter for us, not to mention for the so-called enemy. Next we were enrolled in a perpetual war against what seemed to be the enemy-of-the-month club. This war kept major revenues going to military procurement and secret police, while withholding money from us, the taxpayers, with our petty concerns for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

But no matter how corrupt our system became over the last century--and I lived through three-quarters of it--we still held on to the Constitution and, above all, to the Bill of Rights. No matter how bad things got, I never once believed that I would see a great part of the nation--of we the people, unconsulted and unrepresented in a matter of war and peace--demonstrating in such numbers against an arbitrary and secret government, preparing and conducting wars for us, or at least for an army recruited from the unemployed to fight in. Sensibly, they now leave much of the fighting to the uneducated, to the excluded.

During Vietnam Bush fled to the Texas Air National Guard. Cheney, when asked why he avoided service in Vietnam, replied, "I had other priorities." Well, so did 12 million of us sixty years ago. Priorities that 290,000 were never able to fulfill.

So who's to blame? Us? Them? Well, we can safely blame certain oil and gas hustlers who have effectively hijacked the government from presidency to Congress to, most ominously, the judiciary. How did they do it? Curiously, the means have always been there. It took the higher greed and other interests to make this coup d'état work.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2012/08/01-0

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 8:52 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 8:02 a.m.

So does that mean you are refusing to support your unsupportable claims.

List of historians "rolling over in their graves"

Proof that republicans aren't republicans

Proof that the President needs legislative approval to reschedule marijuana

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 9:02 a.m. ( | suggest removal


... *respected scientists that testified on the other side of this issue.*

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.

We're still waiting.....

Meanwhile:

#Scientists Tell Senate Panel: Climate Change Is Here and Disaster Costs Will Be Huge

"There is no doubt that climate has changed," Fields said. "There is also no doubt that a changing climate changes the risks of extremes, including extremes that can lead to disaster."

Despite the evidence presented, however, Republican Senator Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma was unwavering in his denial of the scientific communities findings. In his prepared opening remarks, Inhofe said: "The global warming movement has completely collapsed."

http://www.commondreams.org/headline/2012/08/01-4

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 9:04 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 6, 2012 at 9:02 a.m

Nope.

Just pointing out that your list of unsupported claims is growing

And we note the your complaints are you restating. Those libertarian-tinted lenses.....

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 9:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 9:10 a.m.

Just what are my so called unsupported claims?

I have laid yours out with easily answered questions, based on your false statements. You have asked some questions, that are in fact unrelated to the majority of my statements.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 9:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 17, 2011 at 6:13 p.m.

frobert — July 18, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.

frobert — August 5, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 7:41 a.m.

*"...in fact unrelated to the majority of my statements."*
frobert — August 6, 2012 at 9:25 a.m.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 9:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Social conservative are not conservative in fact I would contend they are more often centrist.

frobert — August 4, 2012 at 1:44 p.m.

frobert, one more time. YOUR definition of a social conservative is wrong. Sometimes your complete failure to own up to a mistake is perplexing. Even when pointed out precisely in print. Ego is one thing but...repeatedly using a link which states something else becomes (as with many of your posts) ridiculous.

One...more...time.

Social conservatism is an authoritarian political ideology that focuses on the preservation of what are seen as traditional values. The accepted goals and ideologies related to preserving traditions and morality often varies from group to group within social conservatism. Thus, there are really no policies or positions that could be considered universal among social conservatives. There are however a number of general principles to which at least a majority of social conservatives adhere, such as support for puritanical morality and traditional family values, often based on a specific understanding of Abrahamist values, and opposition to sexual permissiveness.
As an application of these general principles, social conservatives in many countries generally: favor the pro-life position in opposing euthanasia, embryonic stem cell research, and abortion; oppose both eugenics (inheritable genetic modification) and human enhancement (transhumanism) while supporting bioconservatism;[1] support abstinence-only education, school prayers, gun ownership and defining marriage as the union of one man and one woman, thus opposing same-sex marriage; support the continued prohibition of recreational or medically non-beneficial drugs; oppose prostitution and brothels, polygamy, gay adoption, premarital sex, and non-marital sex; and object to pornography and what they consider to be indecency and promiscuity. Some may also oppose the teaching of evolution in public schools, preferring creationism.[2]

Although it might be centrist to DBW & other tea party/extremist conservative sycophants.

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 9:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 17, 2011 at 6:13 p.m.
I am unwilling to go back a year, you should have asked the question a year ago

frobert — July 18, 2012 at 10:35 p.m.
This post was concerning the political term "denier" and how using political terms to try to degrade those who disagree is not in keeping with the spirit of true collaboration of science. I stand by this remark.

frobert — August 5, 2012 at 3:40 p.m.
This was asking you to support your claims, it has nothing to do with any of your questions posed to me.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 7:41 a.m.
This was asking you to support your claims, it has nothing to do with any of your questions posed to me.

Now that I have answered your questions can you...

List the historians that are "rolling over in their graves"

Prove that republicans are not republicans

Prove that the President cannot reschedule marijuana without legislative approval

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 9:47 a.m. ( | suggest removal



"Prove that the President cannot reschedule marijuana without legislative approval"

Anyone care to simply read the darned law? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811

Drift — August 6, 2012 at 9:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


As stated many times before: IF you have some solid, substantive, peer-reviewed evidence that supports your denier position, then let's see it.

Until then, your supposition that denier is a "political term" is invalid.

Yet another example of the libertarian tinted lenses.

*frobert — July 18, 2012 at 10:35 p.m. This post was concerning the political term "denier" and how using political terms to try to degrade those who disagree is not in keeping with the spirit of true collaboration of science. I stand by this remark.*

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 9:47 a.m.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 10:06 a.m. ( | suggest removal


*frobert — August 17, 2011 at 6:13 p.m. I am unwilling to go back a year, you should have asked the question a year ago*

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 9:47 a.m

That was the point; we have been asking for almost a year.....

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 10:10 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — August 6, 2012 at 9:58 a.m.

I am familiar with the law, I was asking Basil to support his false claim that the President would need legislative approval. This is a myth that democrats use to minimize the Libertarian efforts in this area.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 10:20 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert- Just in case your processing problems continue...hope this helps.

Conservatism (Latin: conservare, "to retain") **is a political and social philosophy** that promotes retaining traditional institutions and supports, at most, minimal and gradual change in society. A person who follows the philosophies of conservatism is referred to as a traditionalist or conservative.

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 10:25 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 10:06 a.m.

Science has absolutely nothing to do with the political term "denier". Secondly the personal attacks on the credibility of anyone who disagrees with the IPCC sanctioned scientists, make it impossible to have a discussion on the matter. I support free and open science, unlike the liberals organizing boycotts against any group that funds real science without predetermined goals.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 10:28 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 6, 2012 at 10:20 a.m

*I am familiar with the law, I was asking Basil to support his false claim that the President would need legislative approval.*

Let us know when you can support just another of the claims you've made a conscious choice to refuse to support.

*This is a myth that democrats use to minimize the Libertarian efforts in this area.*

Let us know when you can support just another of the claims you've made a conscious choice to refuse to support.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 10:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Conservatives should start a new movement predicated on unfamiliarity with their own thinking.

Sarah Palin could lead it, Ron Paul could endorse it, and Michele Bachman could run on it. (my bad, she already does)

They could call it the party of Fiscally Uneducated Crony Kings.

Or......

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 10:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 6, 2012 at 10:28 a.m.
frobert — August 3, 2012 at 8:59 a.m.

Give us a list of those "real scientists, who have a healthy skepticism for the popular hype"

Since there really aren't any, efforts to make a news story 'fair and balanced' by quoting a denier would be similar to adding quotes from the KKK in an article about civil rights.

Anytime you want to bring something that approximates actual, substantive research that supports a claim that there is some agenda to hide science.....

Or the actual science that supports your claims.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 10:39 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Whatever happened to "it's all about the economy"?

**Republican Slams Planned Parenthood As 'Bloody, Indecent, Immoral' Group**

In the ongoing battle for state funding in North Carolina, Planned Parenthood may have underestimated the ire of its elected opponents.

The Winston-Salem Journal reports North Carolina State Rep. Larry Pittman (R) sent an email to colleagues in which he accused the family planning provider of "getting wealthy on murder for hire."

Pittman is a member of the state's Health and Human Services Appropriations committee that voted to defund Planned Parenthood earlier this year.

Planned Parenthood **“deals out nothing but deception, death, personal devastation, and moral degradation,"** Pittman wrote in the email, which was a reply to a May 24 email from Planned Parenthood urging lawmakers not to cut funding for it. **"Never will I agree to give that bloody, indecent, immoral organization one penny. I will not be satisfied until it is outlawed.”**

The Planned Parenthood email had tried to make the case that it actually reduces the incidence of abortion in North Carolina by providing birth control services to 61,000 women a year, in addition to thousands of cancer and STD screenings. Pittman pushed back against that claim in a comment to the Independent Tribune. “My sources tell me that 75 percent of [Planned Parenthood’s] income comes through abortions,” he told the paper. “To say that they would try to reduce the incidence of abortion is like saying a baker would go around trying to get people to stop eating bread.”

Abortion actually accounts for about 3 percent of the non-profit provider's revenue, according to its 2009-2010 annual financial report.

Planned Parenthood did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/larry-pittman-nc-planned-parenthood-murder_n_1747256.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 10:59 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 10:33 a.m.

http://blog.norml.org/2012/04/25/obama-to-rolling-stone-were-not-going-to-legalization-of-weed/

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 11:18 a.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 10:39 a.m.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 11:22 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit,

More evidence of the GOP's say one thing, do another:

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/hr997

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 11:33 a.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 6, 2012 at 11:22 a.m

frobert — August 3, 2012 at 8:26 a.m.

etc.

#Expert credibility in climate change

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers. http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107

There is no real need to ask the KKK for their opinion on civil rights either.

IF you have something substantive from " other side of this issue. ", you have had ample opportunity to do so.

And there is a real reason why you haven't.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 11:44 a.m. ( | suggest removal


A reminder to everyone (Democrats/Progressives/Liberals) to get your ballots in today if voting by mail.

If Republican or the Federal Party/Bagger Party/..whatever the hell it is called today, just chuck em' in the garbage. :)

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 11:54 a.m. ( | suggest removal


Okay... my opinion on the abortion/contraception thing. I swear the whole thread is beginning to reek of rotten fish, herring in particular, but...

I'll start with abortion:

I've heard of women aborting a fetus because it wasn't of the sex they wanted. I find that bogus. In late term abortions, one method is to induce labor. When the fetus "crowns" the attending physician quickly scrambles its brain. The result being a still birth. Frankly, I find that horrific. I cannot fathom how a human being could perform such a procedure. Thinking of it almost brings tears (really, no joke).

What of a fetus with known major defects? To bring a human being into this world, condemning it to a life (even though possibly short) of agony... That seems practically sadistic to me.

The victim of rape? After the initial horrific act should a woman be forced to relive it daily? To be reminded of the monstrous act for 3/4 of a year? Is this a penalty to be paid? And what of the birth? To deliver the child of a monster and give it away for adoption... A child she full well knows is out there, carrying her genes as well as an individual capable of such heinous behavior. What value her sanity?

As far as contraception:

I'm surprised no one has mentioned tubal ligation or vasectomy. Just sayin. What of the couple who's had several children, or perhaps don't want to have kids? What of the monogamous couple that relish the one act that only they two share with one another. Should they be denied the coverage for medications or a simple procedure. Would doing so penalize a couple for being responsible adults?

A single blanket can't be thrown over the entire subject. It's to darned complicated. For an individual to believe it can be done is (in my opinion) ludicrous.

Oh! And I'm curious... though I don't post to "bare" politics, where would you put me; left, right, conservative, liberal... just curious.

Drift — August 6, 2012 at 11:57 a.m. ( | suggest removal



frobert — August 6, 2012 at 11:18 a.m

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/21/811

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 11:58 a.m. ( | suggest removal


nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 10:35 a.m.

Sometimes, you crack me up with your wit. Thanks for the laughs this morning.

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 12:04 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 11:58 a.m.

Your point?

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 12:06 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — August 6, 2012 at 11:57 a.m.

Your politics for the most part seems to be based in one subject, on that subject you seem to be aligned with the Libertarian and the green party. These two parties align on individual liberties but their overall positions on governance differ.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 12:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 11:44 a.m.

I was reading the abstract on the link you provided...and as long as there's that remote chance...even with the 2-3% who question ACC (which I would like to see the actual numbers of yea - vs- nay just to answer my question of curiosity on where they based those numbers from), there will be skeptics from the public sector who question it as well.

All it takes is one little shred of evidence to the contrary to turn a substantial number of scientists in to skeptics till new data surfaces which turns them back in the direction they originally took.

You already know pretty much where my stance is on the subject from past discussions so we don't have to discuss whether ACC is what it is. I just thought I'd put in my 2 cents in, mentioning what I've mentioned.

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 12:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal



frobert — August 6, 2012 at 12:06 p.m.

You've been making a claim. There was your opportunity to cite the language that supports it.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 12:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 12:21 p.m.

The law makes it clear that it is an executive decision, as I stated.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 12:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*I was reading the abstract on the link you provided...and as long as there's that remote chance...even with the 2-3% who question ACC (which I would like to see the actual numbers of yea - vs- nay just to answer my question of curiosity on where they based those numbers from), there will be skeptics from the public sector who question it as well.*

Full text at http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes

*All it takes is one little shred of evidence to the contrary to turn a substantial number of scientists in to skeptics till new data surfaces which turns them back in the direction they originally took.*

Not actually accurate. That "little shred of evidence", may have little effect on the evidence in balance. That is why the deniers have only a few papers to rely on; the vast preponderance of data doesn't support their opinion.

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 12:12 p.m.

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003187107.full.pdf+html?with-ds=yes

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 12:31 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh but Basil, by utilizing the phrase *"That little shred of evidence ***"MAY"*** have little effect on the evidence in balance..."*

...will lead skeptics to question the accuracy of your statement in it's context.

That's all it takes is just one word and the way it is used in text to turn over a case...ACC included. Most writers are aware of that very little trick in the book which will decide whether or not their published works will be determined as fiction or nonfiction.

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 12:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


So where is the Columbian Staff today??? John Hill still working here? I'm just curious...haven't seen Matt's name at the start of this forum which by the way the week for this forum ended *YESSSTERDAY*!!! Must be they want the numbers for last week to appear even larger...going for a record???

So John Hill...Matt still around???

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 12:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Nail-

Is the heat getting to you.. Do we need to send the ice cream Van to your door.. Your citing from Faux news...Alarm, Alarm, Alarm...Thats what got me laughing.. It's nice to see your branching out and looking at all the sources.. Stay cool my friend..

vanwadreamer — August 6, 2012 at 1:10 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 6, 2012 at 12:26 p.m.

Attorney General. After review of the literature.

Your vid didn't prove anything.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 1:20 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 1:20 p.m.

Who appoints the Attorney General?

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 1:22 p.m. ( | suggest removal


go @ 12:04- I appreciate your appreciation. Post was not meant for offending. What's up with the overseers in the forum department today? These numbers are reminding me of the old days when we were surface dwellers.

---

vanwa- Ice cream sounds great! I did preface my Fox News posting with "for what it's worth".

I watch Fox on occasion. It appeases the part of my brain that appreciates comedy & tragedy!

That and I believe I shouldn't criticize Fox News unless I know what they're up to. Shepard Smith seems pretty good. Most everybody else seems to be in yo-yo land. Skewing the news to appease Fox News agenda of manufacturing/perpetuating right wing propaganda.

Is Sarah Palin still getting checks from them?

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 1:57 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Like I said, yo-yo land, (not to be confused with la-la land, home of the tea party movement) and this is just from today......

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/fox-news-team-usa-uniforms-patriotic_n_1746519.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/fox-sports-baghdad-iran-hamid-soryan_n_1748067.html

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 2:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal



goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 12:42 p.m.

Yup, should have fleshed out the sentence.

"*All it takes is one little shred of evidence to the contrary to turn a substantial number of scientists in to skeptics till new data surfaces which turns them back in the direction they originally took.*"

The main point is that "little shred of evidence" is far more effective as a denier talking point.

IF it were well substantiated, you'd still need to balance it with the large body of evidence.

And in far more cases, that "little shred of evidence" turns out not to be either well substantiated nor accurately reported in the popular press.

One reason why public opinion and beliefs vary from what those with expertise understand to be accurate.

And why frobert, et al, can't deliver any solid evidence that supports their position.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 2:16 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 2:16 p.m.

What position have I given on global warming? I have supported free and unfettered science. I have also condemned insulting and minimizing those whose opinions differ.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 2:27 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**Romney Persona Non Grata In Italy For Bain’s Deal Skirting Taxes**

Romney skipped Italy on his swing through Europe. That was probably prudent.

Aug. 6 (Bloomberg) -- Bloomberg's Peter Cook reports on a leveraged buyout deal by Bain Capital in Italy 12 years ago that remains controversial to this day as the company made about $1 billion on the deal while avoiding taxes. He speaks on Bloomberg's "In The Loop."
Bain funneled profits through subsidiaries in Luxembourg, a common corporate strategy for avoiding income taxes in other European countries, according to documents reviewed by Bloomberg News. The buyer, Italy’s biggest telephone company, now has a total market value less than what it paid Bain and other investors for the directory business.

In Italy, the deals have spurred at least three books, separate legal and regulatory probes and newspaper columns alleging investors made a fortune at the expense of Italian taxpayers. Boston-based Bain wasn’t a subject of the inquiries, which didn’t result in any charges.

The sale of the government’s directory business is “a dark chapter in the country’s privatization history, one that has hurt Italians deeply,” said Bernardo Bortolotti, an economics professor at Turin University who advised the Italian Treasury on asset sales from 2002 through 2005. “It was a mistake from the start, damaged by a lack of transparency and the use of offshore funds.”

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-08-06/romney-persona-non-grata-in-italy-for-bain-s-deal-skirting-taxes.html

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 3:44 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 6, 2012 at 2:27 p.m.

*Nobel Laureate Ivar Giaever seems to disagree with you. (He is a real Nobel Laureate, unlike Krugman)*

frobert — July 14, 2012 at 10:14 p.m.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 4:09 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Never fear, Nailingit. I wasn't offended. In fact, I was humored by your clever wordplay...much like the humor in the politicians who thrive on stating they're Repubs, Demos, Libs, Indy's, Greens...Martians...Grays...

...whatever they want to call themselves when it suits their need these days. Heck, the party lines are so blurred by PC Politics...you just never know who's who and who's standing up for what any more.

And I think the same goes for the voters. I don't think many people know if they support any party...no matter how gray the party lines are.

Just keep on smiling and know you are doing your best to show support in what you believe in. We'll know we're truly in trouble when we hear of "Liberal Republicans" or "Rightwing Democrats."

;}}}

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 4:12 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"""The main point is that "little shred of evidence" is far more effective as a denier talking point."""

Mister Basil, I do believe you have caught onto my point...and have done it well. All it takes is a bit of skepticism and someone will eventually deny all verifiable scientific data.

Regarding Frobert's stance...maybe you'd like to clarify once again for all of us who have...well...tried to pass over your argument with Fro...just what it is you say he is denying. As far as I'm seeing in Frobert's writes...he is skeptical about some of the data provided...maybe because of the site provided, maybe because talking points sometimes need explanation without insult by the one sharing rather than just a list of links, maybe he's waiting for YOUR explanation rather than a list of links for him to fumble through, trying to get the gist of your point...I don't know. Either way...I too am a skeptic and I too prefer sites which are straight up with completely readable and understandable context and data rather than generalized statements....kind of that "show me the numbers" mentality.

Not all of us are scientists with an education in the capacity of a PhD...but I can say for sure that I believe all of us who post on the forum are forever learning. Just because our opinions might be different from one another...doesn't mean we aren't open for a lesson or two if you get my drift.

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 4:26 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 4:09 p.m.

I don't see how you would believe that, by pointing out legitimate scientific dissent to popular global warming theory that I am posing an opinion. I am skeptical, in the truest sense of the word, I look at both sides, unlike you.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 4:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


And Basil...ACC in my opinion...comes with the territory as the planet becomes increasingly crowded and technology continues to grow. Here's my confusion in the matter...we are also in the midst of a 11-year Solar Cycle (give or take) which should peak next year...and as you are well aware, that can affect world climactic patterns, however minor...but one has to look beyond just the past few centuries to determine if the Solar Cycles have a direct link to the climate change we are experiencing or if it is a combination of ACC *WITH* solar cycles intensifying.

So how do we know if the Sun isn't the direct cause and ACC is just the frosting on the cake??? Does it mean the Earth needs to reduce the size of population in order to reduce energy consumption, reduce removal of trees, reduce our carbon footprint???

Once a skeptic....always a student.

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 4:43 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Frobert...August 6, 2012 at 4:34 p.m...you and me both. I would like answers presented up front and easy to comprehend.

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 4:45 p.m. ( | suggest removal


I just sent John Hill an e-mail asking what happened to today's new page --- didn't see that anywhere here sent one earlier.

I also asked after Matt. Don't know about anyone else, but I'm going to miss doing my Festus imitation calling for him.

And speaking of Festus - found this clip. For some reason, the way the discussion plays out is quite familiar.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8363Z...

roger — August 6, 2012 at 5:36 p.m. ( | suggest removal


*I too prefer sites which are straight up with completely readable and understandable context and data rather than generalized statements....kind of that "show me the numbers" mentality.*

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 4:26 p.m.

Then I'd point you, et al, to the Executive Summaries and FAQs in the most current IPCC report - AR4 http://www.ipcc.ch/

Those sections are more accessible and point to the appropriate sections of the various reports. Those reports list all the references used in developing those reports.

The years since that report have brought no research that disproves the points made in AR4. There will be some narrowing of projections and I think some shortening of time scales.

But basically, all the research points to our profligate burning of fossil fuels as the cause. Solar, volcanoes, cosmic rays don't have the power.

See:
How do Human Activities Contribute to Climate Change and How do They Compare with Natural Influences? http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/faq-2-1.html for the numbers.

And, like I've asked many times; IF there is a body of evidence, a pile of research, that shows anything substantively different, bring it forward. With all the efforts the deniers put forth, that data should be readily available. After all, they've had over a century to research any and all alternatives.

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 5:42 p.m. ( | suggest removal


frobert — August 6, 2012 at 4:34 p.m.

I'd say you'd have to be play fast and loose with the concept of "pointing out legitimate scientific dissent to popular global warming theory " if that is your virtually sole example.

And I'd say that 98% consensus among experts is far more than "popular".

mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 5:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Basil...here's is where I have the difficulties believing everything I read as my skepticism flag flies whenever I read documents with generalized statements. Take for example this excerpt on Carbon dioxide from the IPCC publication you presented:

*Carbon dioxide has increased from fossil fuel use in transportation, building heating and cooling and the manufacture of cement and other goods. Deforestation releases CO2 and reduces its uptake by plants. Carbon dioxide is also released in natural processes such as the decay of plant matter.*

The first questions that come to my mind are..."what percentage of carbon dioxide increases have been determined to be anthropogenic caused and what percentage is natural caused?" In calculating deforestation release of CO2, are they basing this solely on human deforestation or does it include deforestation caused by lack of rainfall, disease and fire? How do they differentiate the data collected? If you have in one year...500,000 acres clear cut by loggers versus 1,600,000 acres of lightning-sparked forest fires which devastates the landscape due to drought/insect conditions, how can they determine accurate data on different sizes of land mass? And how can they determine accurate CO2 readings for man versus nature???

Basil, this is one example why there are skeptics such as myself who need to see the numbers...IN PLAIN ENGLISH. I could easily piece apart this entire article in order to gain the information as it is presented to me and ask a zillion questions which still cannot be fully answered by the scientists. It is easy to take for granted that the scientists know their schtuff...but some of us are curious and want to know where they're basing their knowledge of their findings before saying "Oh, yeah, yeah...yup, ACC is evident." We can see the discrepancy yet do not get the direct factual answers...just generalized statements based on "scientific evidence" which isn't accurately differentiated between man and nature. I'm not even sure the actuals can be mapped out in such a manner through data collection. All we get is one heckuva(n) educated guess in general consensus.

to be continued...

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 6:50 p.m. ( | suggest removal


continued..

Also Basil...I'm not saying I don't believe ACC is an issue as I do...but generalized statements that say "Carbon dioxide increased from fossil fuel..." hard to take that as hard evidence as far as I'm concerned since in the same paragraph, it speaks of natural carbon dioxide released from plant matter decay.

One more comment...wouldn't it take research from many thousands of years to gain the data in order to prove the theory of Anthropogenic Climate Change? Is it truly possible to differentiate the natural course of CO2 in our environment, given the release from so many natural sources when compared to the release of CO2 through human causes? And where is the line drawn between human cause and natural cause?

Too many questions...not enough space to type. (And it doesn't help that I have downloads and updates that crashed my system mid stream while posting...and that Captcha...what a bunch of rubbish!!!)

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 6:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Roger...you gotta love Festus Hagen!!! I was watching an old episode of Gunsmoke today...laughed when that cantankerous old Festus was telling the story about his great uncle (I think it was his great uncle) and telling a lie. He told the rancher that his relative said never to tell a lie because lightning would strike you down.

The rancher asked him "Whatever happened to him?"

Festus replied..."Well, there was this rumblin' thunderstorm and..."

Well, anybody who knows how Ken Curtis used to act, he'd get a certain look on his face like he was saying "*You* know the rest of the story."

Yep! You gotta love Festus.

goldenoldie — August 6, 2012 at 7:02 p.m. ( | suggest removal


mr_basil_seal — August 6, 2012 at 5:50 p.m.

When talking science, the consensus is often wrong. Just in the past couple of hundred years, the consensus of physicists has been wrong many times. Your argument that nobody should question the majority is not only without merit, but it can be downright dangerous.

frobert — August 6, 2012 at 7:07 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — August 6, 2012 at 8:46 a.m.

I am sorry if the perpetual discussion of abortion is getting tiresome. But some people take certain issues seriously. Let's look at the old term used in the Vietnam era to refer to vets and Soldiers as "baby killers". This was used to make them sound like everyone of them we evil sadistic consumers of infant flesh. (And no I am not advocating infanticide)

So if it is unacceptable to kill children in a time of war (not saying all soldiers do, nor am I saying it is acceptable), why is it acceptable to do so as a basis of choice, or reproductive rights?

Not convinced on this argument.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 8:18 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Potpourri-

Goldie! You capitalized "Sun." Yes, I noticed.

About this "global warming" thing. See, this is the way *I* see it:

The planet's weather patterns do appear to be changing. Any one living here in the PNW must have noticed it in the last few years. Is the question really whether it's anthropological or a natural phenomonon? Does it matter?

I recall being a young lad and coming over the mountains looking into a California valley. Whatever valley Disney Land is in. I couldn't see "land." All I could see was a haze.

That was a result of us. I've no doubt. I've no citations to offer. I'm merely recounting my observation. It wasn't a fog. It wasn't... Well, it was us. I'm pretty darn sure.

Do we want to keep doing that?

I don't. A lot of folks don't. The thing is, there are corporations that will lose billion and billions (yeah, I wrote billions twice) of dollars if we stop doing that.

Therein lies (pun?) the issue. I mean, if we as a people could simply quit polluting our atmosphere without large corps losing shares on the market... then I wouldn't be typing about it right now, now would I. Food for thought?
Maybe?

DBW should be reporting to his watch shortly. That's the military version of going to work. DBW should be catching up on today's post (on his issued equipment (cheap shot?)) about any time now.

Will he take my bait? Will I reel him in the boat?

I'll check later. Right now I'm thinking of plunging into 300 gallons of 106 (F) degree water. Sounds crazy, yes? Maybe I am... I suppose it's all a matter of perspective.

As are the vast majority of the words printed in this forum, eh?

Drift — August 6, 2012 at 8:37 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"So if it is unacceptable to kill children in a time of war (not saying all soldiers do, nor am I saying it is acceptable), why is it acceptable to do so as a basis of choice, or reproductive rights?

Not convinced on this argument."

And while I was typing... heh.

And you won't be convinced, DBW. I've no question of that. My intention was simply to give you something to chew on. Take your time.

I will say that if you aren't willing to kill every and anything your government tells you to, then you need to find another job. As a member of the military, you do realize that is in the first line of you job description, right?. Killing. Well, maybe a bit further down... (okay, I went a bit afield, still).

Wanna talk about pot?

I'll catch up with you later. I've a jacuzzi calling my name.

Drift — August 6, 2012 at 8:53 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — August 6, 2012 at 8:46 a.m.

Now for the other question you posed.

I, personally, have smoked marijuana in the past. I was young, curious, filled with all the usual teenaged angst and desire to find my place in society. I decided it wasn't for me.

I am now older, and (hopefully) more mature. I am also a parent myself. I realize that to even try it when I did was wrong. I also find that I can better look at the situation and form my opinion.

Recreational use:
Looking at it objectionally, though I am personally against the use of marijuana, I can see where we could be looking at the issue of personal liberty and freedom. In this light, I can see merits to rescheduling or eliminating it from the schedule. There are some points in the argument for legalization that do rub me the wrong way.

I have seen literature claiming the using marijuana CURES (!?) cancer. While I am not saying that everyone in support of legalization will make or endorse such a claim, I am sure you can agree that this is detrimental to the advancement of the cause.

The other part of this I find hard to stomach is that fact that people continue to break the law. Until the scheduling is changed, recreational use is illegal. While there may be examples of such lawless behavior in history having the desired affect, I don't think this is a valid argument. If it works for one issue, why would it not work for another. If we start seeing a rise in drunk driving arrests, will we see a campaign to change that law?

Medicinal use:

I believe this is something that was not completely thought through. Let's start by looking at the Hippacratic (not sure of spelling) Oath. "First I shall do no harm." While I will not say that marijuana provides no positive affects, doesn't the act of taking a burning substance and inhaling the smoke have damaging effects? Afterall, everyone is trying to make smoking tobacco so inconvenient trying to get people to quit on these grounds. Regardless of the actual drug/chemical compound it contains, the negative affects are there.

Many are not aware, but years ago, researchers in the UK extracted the THC from the plant and put it into a pill form. I do not know why the FDA hasn't approve it for market in the US. But if THC were so beneficial for these various conditions, you would think Drs. would clamor for this instead of writing prescriptions to inhale smoke.

Just my take on this.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 9:03 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift — August 6, 2012 at 11:57 a.m.

I have made my way down the line and found this post. Let's have a look.

So potential birth defect/disability is sufficient to justify killing a child. With that logic, we can repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act. It won't be needed because we have justification in killing everyone this law protects.

Rape. I have acknowledged that in this case, the mother didn't have a choice. But you are inflicting the punishment for the crime on one that did not commit the crime (killing the child who was not the rapist). So if a man who breaks into my home and violates my family, I am justified to kill his father. (extreme, but same concept)
I realize that the situation is not easy for the mother, and I know she deserves respect and care to get through her situation. But to kill the child just to make her life easier is, as I said before, selfish.

Contraception:
I have stated that I am not against contraception. I am only saying that if you adult enough to make a decision to have sex, you should be adult enough to pay for your own contraception. I do not believe anyone is obligated to pay for a voluntary thing that an individual chooses. Yes, contraception can be used in the responsible planning of a family by a couple, which is acceptable. But it is a choice they make, and can pay their own way.
The heart of the issue is that for the government to force a private individual or company to provide coverage for a voluntary service/product/procedure is an unconstitutional infringement on freedom.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 9:21 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**10 Most Profitable U.S. Corporations Paid Average Tax Rate Of Just 9 Percent Last Year: Report**

While some of America's biggest corporations may complain that they pay too much in taxes, a recent analysis shows that many are actually getting off pretty easy.

According to the financial site NerdWallet, the 10 most profitable U.S. companies paid an average federal tax rate of just 9 percent last year. The group includes heavyweights Exxon Mobil, Apple, Microsoft, JPMorgan Chase and General Electric. (Hat tip: Barry Ritholtz.)

Some of these companies paid more than 9 percent -- JPMorgan earned $26.7 billion in 2011, for example, and paid $3.7 billion of it, or 14 percent, to the federal government -- and some paid less, like Exxon Mobil, which only sent 2 percent of its $73.3 billion earnings to the IRS.

But the 10 companies all paid much less than the nominal corporate tax rate of 35 percent -- a number that investor and tax-the-rich advocate Warren Buffett has dismissed as "a myth," but one that presidential front-runners Barack Obama and Mitt Romney have both proposed to lower.

The effective corporate tax rate has been on its way down for decades, recently hitting a 40-year low even as corporate profits have reached an all-time high. Many of the companies that have seen their tax rates fall in recent years -- including Exxon Mobil, Verizon, General Electric and AT&T; -- are among the biggest spenders when it comes to lobbying, according to a recent analysis by the Sunlight Foundation.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/06/most-profitable-corporations-tax-rate_n_1746817.html?ref=topbar

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 9:29 p.m. ( | suggest removal


**FORUM ALERT!!!**

August 6-12 forum now available.

nailingit — August 6, 2012 at 9:33 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Drift is paying attention. Kinda scary, he has managed to approximate my schedule. Practicing for when you start stalking someone?

Now, before anyone grabs a hold of one thing you posted and runs with it as a sign of fraud waste and abuse by the government, let me give an explanation for those that are not familiar (you may still want to launch the crusade, but humor me anyway).

Yes I am using a Government computer on a Government network to post here. This is legal.
DoD issued a policy allowing for limited personal use of these systems. Limited in that certain guidelines must be followed.

No access to restricted sites (most obvious being pornography, but other sites as well)

Not to interfere with regular duties (if your personal use creates an inability to complete your duties, that is a problem)

Not you use a government system for a venture meant to turn a profit. (I can correspond to find a home I need to rent so my family has a place to live, but not to rent out my home to use it as investment property)

There are more rules involving minutiae, but I don't want to bore you. These are the main points that get most violators in trouble.

danabwoodley — August 6, 2012 at 9:34 p.m. ( | suggest removal


"Drift is paying attention. Kinda scary, he has managed to approximate my schedule. Practicing for when you start stalking someone?"

Stalk? Naw. I gave that up when I decided it wasn't worth the pay. Do you mind if I bail on the whole abortion/contraceptive thing, DB? As I mentioned previously, that horse is a stinking pile. And here I sit all fresh from my tubbing and shower...

On the cannabis thing, though... Oh boy. You guys get your popcorn ready. DB and I are going to go to school.

DB, "I have seen literature claiming the using marijuana CURES (!?) cancer."

"Using," wouldn't be the right word, D.B. "Administration" would be a better fit. Research indicates the phytocannabinoids THC and CBD are antiangiogenetic, propapototic and antimitogenic in cancer cells.

There is research currently being done using synthetic cannabinoids to halt leukemia down at a southern university. Here, have a ball with this: http://bloodjournal.hematologylibrary.org/content/100/2/627.full.html

I'd also suggest you got to http://www.nih.gov/ and enter stuff like, neurologicical pain, MS, Parkinson's... Oh, and don't forget to add the word "cannabis." You wanna talk about gliomas, too?

As far as smoking cannabis, yeah, inhaling burning material probably isn't the best thing for your lungs. I've no argument there. It can cause... oh wait! How about we have an expert in the field speak to that? http://whyprohibition.ca/sites/default/files/Hashibe%20Cannabis%20Cancer%20Risk%20Alcohol%202005.pdf

DB, "Many are not aware, but years ago, researchers in the UK extracted the THC from the plant and put it into a pill form. I do not know why the FDA hasn't approve it for market in the US. But if THC were so beneficial for these various conditions, you would think Drs. would clamor for this instead of writing prescriptions to inhale smoke."

I'm not sure why you're kind of crossed up here, man. Marinol (dronabinol) IS a prescribed drug in the U.S.

Take you favorite search engine and point it at: GW Pharmaceuticals, Sativex ( I make that in my kitchen. Don't tell, okay?).i

Dude... we need to talk. I mean, really.

Drift — August 6, 2012 at 11:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Oh! and, DB while you're doing that whole search engine thing enter something like, "endocannabinoid system." That would be the CB1 and CB2 (so far as we know today).

You might want to study this in your spare time, too. You know? Just to get an understanading of the relevant biology http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/301notes2.htm

More popcorn, guys (yeah, I suppose I'm getting loopy. I should hit the rack)?

Drift — August 6, 2012 at 11:28 p.m. ( | suggest removal


...

nailingit — August 10, 2012 at 9:15 a.m. ( | suggest removal


test

hawkeye — August 11, 2012 at 4:14 p.m. ( | suggest removal


Forum Login