Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Let immigrants run
- Chrisfrommactown on Let immigrants run
- BlueJay on Let immigrants run
- Monkeyhawk on Too many exemptions
- JWink on Too many exemptions
- LonnythePlumber on Jail consultants straining patience
- BlueJay on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
- Regular on Open thread 11/22
Open thread 6/24
- By Phillip Brownlee
- Posted June 24, 2007 at 1:05 a.m.
- Filed under Open thread
- Permalink
- Comments RSS
- Both comments and trackbacks are closed
102 Comments
Oh yes, phase II, never came. He left that post like the others before him. “What’s the matter with Kansas”? You bought the lies…
As long as corporates make money, nothing else matters! War!!! Illegal immigrants!!! Lobbyists!!!
How do working Americans fit into the picture?
Survey of 1,000 Likely Voters
May 15, 2007Click here to read Eagle Forum press release announcing poll and its highlights
(* Part of Rasmussen Polling)1. First…there are currently 26 million legal immigrants in the country. That’s one out of every 11 people in the country. An additional one million new legal immigrants are allowed in each year. Is the number of legal immigrants allowed into the country too high, too low, or about right? 8% – Too Low55% – Too High32% – About Right5% – Not sure2. Okay…The total immigrant population in the United States, including both legal and illegal immigrants, is currently 38 million. That’s one of every eight people in the country. An additional 1.5 million new legal and illegal immigrants settle in the country each year. Putting aside the question of legal status for a moment, and focusing only on the totals, is the number of immigrants allowed into the country each year too high, too low, or about right? 5% – Too Low70% – Too High19% – About Right 6% – Not sure3. Have the government’s efforts to enforce immigration law been completely inadequate or has the government made a real effort to enforce our immigration laws?76% – Inadequate11% – Government has made a real effort12% – Not sure4. Should we continue the current level of immigration or has the time come to reduce immigration so we can assimilate the immigrants already here?23% – Continue current level64% – Reduce immigration14% – Not sure5. Do we need to allow more immigrants into the country to fill the jobs that require relatively little education? Or, are there plenty of Americans already here to do those jobs, but employers just need to pay higher wages and treat workers better?14% – We need immigrants to fill jobs77% – There are plenty of Americans here to fill jobs, employers just need to pay higher wages and treat workers better9% – Not sure6. Some have suggested granting legal status to the 12 million illegals already in the country. How confident are you in the government’s ability to weed out criminals and terrorists and others who should not get legal status: 7% – Very confident 19% – Somewhat confident43% – Not very confident28% – Not at all confident3% – Not sure7. As part of the effort to reduce illegal immigration, would you prefer a 700 mile long fence covering one-third of the US-Mexico border, a 2,000 mile fence covering the entire US-Mexican border, or not building a fence along the US-Mexico border?7% – 700 Mile fence51% – 2,000 Mile fence35% – Do not build a fence7% – Not sure8. With regard to the 12 million illegal immigrants in the country, ideally would you prefer they go home or be allow to stay legally? 58% – Go home30% – Be allowed to stay legally13% – Not sure9. A proposal has been made for a large-scale effort to round up and deport the 12 million illegal immigrants in this country. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal?40% – Strongly support24% – Somewhat support17% – Somewhat oppose14% – Strongly oppose5% – Not sure10. Another proposal has been made that would allows the 12 million illegal aliens here to be legalized and offered citizenship after they pay a fine, learn English and undergo a background check. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal?27% – Strongly support33% – Somewhat support14% – Somewhat oppose24% – Strongly oppose2% – Not sure11. A third proposal has been made to reduce the illegal immigrant population over time by enforcing existing immigration laws. This would include increased border enforcement, penalizing employers who hire illegals, and more cooperation with local law enforcement. Do you strongly support, somewhat support, somewhat oppose, or strongly oppose this proposal?54% – Strongly support25% – Somewhat support9% – Somewhat oppose6% – Strongly oppose6% – Not sure12. Which approach do you prefer — enforcing the law and cause illegal immigrants to go home over time or granting legal status and citizenship to those who meet certain requirements.56% – Enforce the law35% – Grant legal status9% – Not sure13. Would you be more or less likely to vote for a presidential candidate who favors allowing the 12 million illegal immigrants to stay in the United States and eventual get citizenship? 12% – Much more likely24% – Somewhat more likely19% – Somewhat less likely33% – Much less likely 11% – Not sure
Someone in a white Cadillac Escalade carrying gang members opened fire with an automatic rifle Saturday, critically injuring a man standing in the street, police said.http://www.kansas.com/news/local/story/105131.html
An automatic weapon? Sounds to me like we have a serious problem.
After reading the links provided by Steven Davis concerning Cheney’s refusal to comply with the executive order pertaining to how his office handles secret material, and his reason for refusing, I have to wonder about the credibility of this man.
On the one hand, he refused to comply with congress on ongoing investigations, claiming executive privilege; on the other claiming he really is not part of the executive branch because he is also president of the senate.
Who really runs the executive branch? It apparently is not Bush. If he did, he would be telling Cheney to fall in line. Cheney is a loose cannon whose words are suspect even before they leave his lips.
This is some serious breach of the law here. Cheney has put himself above that, and needs to be brought to justice. No man is above the law.
XXX,
Am automatic weapon?
Wow. I wonder how on earth they could have gotten one of those.
They are illegal.
Didn’t the gang know they were breaking the law by shooting someone with an automatic weapon?
Looks like we need some more gun control laws….
Yes, we should arm everyone with assault weapons or submachine guns…that’ll make the bad guys think hard about pulling a stunt like this one.
We can look to Somalia and Iraq as models of how arming large groups of a society might work. I’m there !!
BFAH,
Seems to work ok in swittzerland.
Great idea. Sign me up.
When do I get my Sig?
Sure Nathan,
I’m with you…the government distributes the weapons while you’re in the reserves, and they take them back when you’re out….and you can only use them when the reserves are called up. Could you go for that? I doubt it. Oh, and all guns are registered, and handgun purchases require a background check and a permit.
Why didn’t the conceal-carry guys take him out like they promised to do?
We need to update some old WWII terms to be relevant today…
like SNAFU…Situation Normal All F*#!!ed Up.
how about
SituationNathanAllF*#!!edUp
Seems to fit the bill.
BFAH,
There are over 200 million legally owned guns by over 80 million people in this country.
I wouldn’t reccommend going to the grocery store because it is just like Somalia out there!
Sigh….
I thought we were talking assault weapons and submachine guns…after the Thompson, the government took steps to ban personal ownership of submachine guns…in the 30s. Guess ownership of high volume fire weapons worked out well back then.
BFAH,
I didn’t think you were trying to talk about anything logically at all.
Funny Nathan, that’s what I think of all of your posts…every day. I think the WB has a winner cartoon comedy with you…I might write a pilot for them.
Nathan,I’m going to assume you’re being sarcastic. You’re fully aware of my views on gun control.
There have been several articles in the Eagle lately about gangs and how the local authorities are dealing with them. It all seems like a very soft approach to me.
IMO, gangs are nothing more than home-grown terrorist groups and should be dealt with accordingly. Want to solve the gang problem? hunt them down and exterminate them like the vermin they are.
Why didn’t the conceal-carry guys take him out like they promised to do?Posted by: happy | June 24, 2007 at 08:55 AM
Only an idiot would go up against an automatic weapon with a handgun.
BFAH,
You think about me every day?
I don’t know if I should be flatterd or disturbed.
XXX,
Oh yeah, I was being sarcastic. I meant the last part of the post to be directed at everyone, not just you.
How can I not Nathan? You said you stayed up posting for 24 hours…I believe it…at least it seems like forever reading your tripe.
So let me run some things by you Nathan. I want to make the script as accurate as possible. I couldn’t write comedy like yours.
1) You’re FOR a missile defense system costing who knows how much, when there is no enemy even on the horizon with ballistic capability that is a threat, when its success rate is dubious, when there are much more important tactical and strategic needs, like ammunition, armed vehicles, body armor, …,
2) That you’re OK with carrying a weapon to protect you from imminent harm, but you’re against a woman making the same choice about a fetus whose presence might be causing her physical harm.
3) You’re FOR freedom of religion, but you chuckle every day to yourself about all those poor bastards going to hell because they don’t accept Jesus as their personal savior.
4) President Bush is as clean as the new-fallen snow…illegal wiretaps, torture of detainees, and political punishment of those who disagree.
Is that about right…ought to be enough for the first episode.
I’ll be back for more later.
BFAH,
It is typical for those, like you, who can’t discuss the issues to make this personal.
Lets look at your little list of lies (yet again, what weak people like you have to do):
“1) You’re FOR a missile defense system costing who knows how much, when there is no enemy even on the horizon with ballistic capability that is a threat…”
Iran, North Korea, China… nope no threat there.
“…when its success rate is dubious…”
Dubious? Only if you ignore the testing.
“when there are much more important tactical and strategic needs, like ammunition, armed vehicles, body armor.”
You imply that I am in favor of sacrifing one for the other. I am not. We are still funding ammunition, armed vehicles and body armor.
“…but you’re against a woman making the same choice about a fetus whose presence might be causing her physical harm.”
I have said many times in the abortion discussion that when it comes to the actual physical health of the mother then the choice is indeed hers.
“3) You’re FOR freedom of religion, but you chuckle every day to yourself about all those poor bastards going to hell because they don’t accept Jesus as their personal savior.”
See what is this? Is this what you have to resort to BFAH?
I have never laughed at those who may be going to hell. I find it very disheartening. I truely do wish that eveyone find and accept Christ as their Savior.
“4) President Bush is as clean as the new-fallen snow…illegal wiretaps, torture of detainees, and political punishment of those who disagree.”
I don’t think this at all. You think that my defense of the President on all the crap you libs accuse him of is blanket approval. It is not.
The wiretaps were not illegal.
I don’t know what your definition of torture is, so who knows what you are talking about.
Political punishment for those who disagree? What is that?
Well, so much for trying to start a serious discussion about gangs on the Open Thread. Once again, we turn a serious topic into a personal brawl.
Why am I not surprised….
Interesting. I prefer knocking my head against a brick wall to attempting a discussion with Nathan. It doesn’t accomplish more but is faster and easier; frees time for worthwhile pursuits.
http://abcnews.go.com/International/story?id=2938762&page=1
From the article. More grist for the global warming mill.
“Climate change is a norm, not an exception. It is both an opportunity and a challenge. The real crises for 4 billion people in the world remain poverty, dirty water and the lack of a modern energy supply. By contrast, global warming represents an ecochondria of the pampered rich.
We can no longer afford to cling to the anti-human doctrines of outdated environmentalist thinking. The “crisis” is the global warming political agenda, not climate change.”
There is also a Professor Emeritus at the University of Kansas, the former State Geologists that agrees with the scientist statements you reference outlander.
But cosmos, the expert by hyperlink calls these people crackpots and tries to discredit them.
I’m still waiting for that record heat wave to hit Kansas any day now. Waiting…
Waiting…
Waiting…
Waiting…
Outlander–
Try to wrap what few remaining cells are up there around this thought.
Everyone on Earth lives on Earth.Global warming affects the entire Earth.
Therefore, it affects everyone on Earth.
Rising sea levels and increasing severe storms and drought will affect everyone, not just the “pampered rich.”
In fact, that’s probably why “pampered rich” are so adamently denying Global Warming.
They are so arrogant that they think their great riches can protect them from a polluted world.
Two tornadoes a half mile wide on the ground for half and hour that completely wiped Greensburg off the map . . . yup, just a typical Kansas thunderstorm.
Nothing to see here.
THOUGHT FOR TODAY
All we say to America is, “Be true to what you said on paper.” If I lived in China or even Russia, or any totalitarian country, maybe I could understand the denial of certain basic First Amendment privileges, because they hadn’t committed themselves to that over there. But somewhere I read of the freedom of assembly. Somewhere I read of the freedom of speech. Somewhere I read of the freedom of the press. Somewhere I read that the greatness of America is the right to protest for right.
Martin Luther King, “Mountain Top” Speech
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/Study_Gayfriendly_cities_enjoy_more_economic_0623.html
Never work here in Wichita.
>….I’m still waiting for that record heat wave to hit Kansas any day now. Waiting…
Waiting…
Waiting…
Waiting…
Posted by: Republican
———————————Did you happen to notice what happened, as a result of the late freeze in Wichita, to the trees, shrubs and flowers that were in bloom?
You only show a total lack of understanding of climate change when you post a comment that you are waiting for the heat wave.
Now I’m going to go outside and enjoy this beautiful day instead of sitting in from of this computer.
Have a wonderful day everyone!!!!
What if:
1. If we do nothing and global warming is real, then we have an epic crisis that will kill millions.
2. If we heed the warnings and act now and global warming is real, we may save millions.
3. If we heed the warnings and act now and global warming isn’t real, we will have made the earth (our home) a better place.
4. If we do nothing and global warming isn’t real, then we continue to pollute and maintain the status quo.
What path would you choose?
It looks like its gonna be a good day to just walk on by!!! LOL
outlander,
Re your “Opinion” column by Philip Stott.
Do you not understand the difference between “opinions” and peer-reviewed scientific research?
Have you researched the author?http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Philip_Stott
http://www.lobbywatch.org/profile1.asp?PrId=126“Although he presents himself as an expert debunker of environmental myths, Stott does not appear to have had a single paper published in a scientific journal in the fields in which he most frequently applies this ‘expertise’, eg climate change or tropical ecology.”
Have you checked his claims, such as: “In the 1970s, the fear was “global cooling.” ”
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html
Have you compared Stott’s “opinions” to peer-reviewed science?http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/wg1-report.html
I wonder where the GORACLE’s peered reviewed Scientific papers on Global are?
Has he dug some ice core samples?
Has he dipped his toes into his heated pool?
Did he plant a tree over a natural gas pipeline?
Well, some more nuclear secrets walked out the door:
http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1632899,00.html
Republicans were in an outrage about this when it happened under Clinton’s watch, but they are silent this time around. Can we take any Republican outrage seriously anymore?
Why didn’t the conceal-carry guys take him out like they promised to do?Posted by: happy | June 24, 2007 at 08:55 AM
Only an idiot would go up against an automatic weapon with a handgun.
xxx
I agree, but the conceal-carry supporters’ argument was that they would confront violent crime and stop it.
“I agree, but the conceal-carry supporters’ argument was that they would confront violent crime and stop it.”
Well, that was their argument but they really wanted to just carry the guns around because it makes them feel macho.
Doug,
I thought the Democratic Congress was in charge now of oversight?
Where is there investigation? Why haven’t we heard outrage from the Congress on this?
I’m just pointing out Republican hypocrisy. Naturally you wouldn’t understand it even though I thought I explained clearly enough. Have fun searching for that dictionary.
Let’s talk about hypocrisy, shall we? The Democrats have been screaming about the inhumane and illegal conditions in Gitmo…yet who is the FIRST to scream NOT IN MY BACKYARD when Leavenworth is mentioned as a possible alternative?
And..let us not forget the Democratically controlled congress.. attacking the Presidetn about his rating when it has the LOWEST approval rating in memory?
Who is the hippocrite?
Leavenworth is a prison you know. There are plenty of criminals already stored there. Do you suggest we empty out the cells in Leavenworth to make you happy?
Republican,
“I wonder where the GORACLE’s peered reviewed Scientific papers on Global are?”
So you’re back to personal attacks, and stupid name-calling again, to avoid the main issue of AGW?
The logic is very simple, and I hope that you’re intelligent enough to understand it.
Al Gore AGREES with the “peered reviewed Scientific papers” that claim that humans are causing global warming.
Gore uses THEIR science to support HIS opinion.
Philip Stott (and others like him) DISAGREE with the “peered reviewed Scientific papers” that claim that humans are causing global warming.
But Stott has NO credible science to support HIS opinion.
Is that too complicated for you to understand?
But Cosmos,
The GORACLE testified before Congress like he is a peer-reviewed scientist and everything he said is gospel.
I want these peer-reviewed scientist to come out in the open and state on public television in distinct details.
Of course, they won’t because the latest news is that a large majority of these peer-reviewed scientists are extremely miffed at the IPCC for misquoting them and taking their scientific papers out of context or as completed works.
I’ve had my fill of neo-con stupidity for awhile so this is my last post for now.
Gore is able to read Republican, that’s a concept which you apparently haven’t been able to understand. If Gore has to be a scientist to present scientific studies before Congress then I suggest you get a whole lot of degrees before expressing any opinions on this forum. Stand by your beliefs and go get that doctorate.
Republican,
“the latest news is that a large majority of these peer-reviewed scientists are extremely miffed at the IPCC for misquoting them and taking their scientific papers out of context or as completed works.”
Post your link(s) proving your “large majority” claim — or you’ve again proven that you’re a Kansas “values” LIAR.
The scientists are “miffed” at their work being watered down.
‘Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?Changes in the Final Text of the “Summary for Policy Makers” ‘http://www.meridian.org.uk/Resources/Global%20Dynamics/IPCC/index.htm
The last section sums up how the bureaucrats weakened the science in the SPM.
‘The Politico-Economic Repression of Climate Science’”It has moved ground to the denial of amplifying feedback, acceleration of climate change, non-linearity in system behaviour and potential feedback-driven instability.”
Two tornadoes a half mile wide on the ground for half and hour that completely wiped Greensburg off the map . . . yup, just a typical Kansas thunderstorm.
Nothing to see here.
Posted by: CapnAmerica | June 24, 2007 at 10:24 AM
C’mon Capn, surely you know we had big bad tornadoes before the seeming discovery of global warming. Weren’t we worried about globabl coooling when the “Super Outbreak” occurred?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Outbreak
Even in Kansas.
http://www.tornadochaser.com/2000history.htm
So, what is your point? Are you relating the destruction of Greensburg, KS to global warming???
Heat is a form of energy.
A one-degree increase in the temp of the Gulf of Mexico for instance is the energy equivalent of hundreds of thousands of atomic bombs.
More energy means more energetic storms.
It’s basic physics.
Please tell us that you’re homeschooled, outlander.
Watched the “US vs. John Lennon” last night.
It was hilarious to see Nixon saying “when the South Vietnamese army is able to defend themselves, our army will pull back.”
Bush: “When the Iraqi army stands up, we’ll stand down.”
Interestingly, their approval rating is about the same too . . .
Oh really Capn. Then please demonstrate your theory and show how it has affected the strength and duration of tornadoes in Kansas. Can’t do it? Thought so. Just throwing crap out like usual, to see what you can get away with.
Outlander,
It isn’t just the tornadoes, it’s weather in general. Ask the wheat farmers about their crop this year. It’s late June. Usually by this time most of the wheat fields around here have been cut, i.e. the wheat has been harvested. Have you taken a drive?
I noticed that the price of wheat per bushel is up, but if over half of your crop was destroyed by the late freeze, and the rest is laying down in the fields, too wet to harvest, I wonder how that higher price is going to help?
Climate change doesn’t happen overnight. It happens over a long period of time, and if you aren’t old enough to remember real seasons, I am. We don’t have them anymore.
“Canton Police officer Bobby Cutts Jr., 30, was arrested Saturday afternoon on for the murder of 26-year-old Ms. Davis and her unborn baby, Chloe.”http://toledoblade.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070623/NEWS03/306230025/-1/NEWS
How can Cutts be charged with 2 murders? It wasn’t even born yet, and they name the fetus – call her Chloe and charge Cutts with murder?
This is a dangerous path to banning abortions if unborn people can be murder victims.
I think this Blog causes global warming and obesity.
Thousands of people sitting around their PC’s blogging all day. Think of the extra energy to power all the PC’s and the air conditioning to cool the homes they sit in to blog.
And sittin on da butt all day causes weight gain and a fat flat butt. (Stand up and look in the mirror – your butts are fat and flatt!)
The Blogs should be banned for causing global warming.
Gore invented the Internet didn’t he? Gore started this mess.
Your Senator is on a Committee That Can Stop Trophy Hunting of Polar Bears
Weblogers,
Polar bears face the threat of global warming and melting ice in the Arctic, but shockingly, American trophy hunters still travel to Canada to shoot these animals in a head-hunting exercise. This Thursday, the Senate Appropriations Committee may vote on an amendment by Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.) to prohibit the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies into the United States. Your Senator is a member of this important committee and will be voting on this issue. Tell your Senator to protect polar bears.
Historically, American residents have not been allowed to import polar bear trophies under the Marine Mammal Protection Act. In 1994, however, Congress bowed to trophy hunting interests and created a loophole that allows the importation of polar bear trophies from Canada. Since then, more than 800 import permits have been issued.
The Reed Amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill would stop funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue permits for the importation of sport-hunted polar bear trophies. This would discourage U.S. trophy hunters from killing polar bears because they couldn’t bring the heads and hides back across the border.
TAKE ACTIONPlease make a brief, polite phone call to your U.S. Senator, Sam Brownback, today at (202) 224-6521 and urge a vote of YES on the Reed Amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to protect polar bears.
outlander,
“Weren’t we worried about globabl coooling when the “Super Outbreak” occurred?”
Some journalists hyped their headlines in the 1970’s, but scientists didn’t know what was going on.
Are you unable to learn the truth?Do you prefer to just keep repeating a bogus talking point over and over, to support your false opinion?
http://illconsidered.blogspot.com/2006/02/they-predicted-cooling-in-1970s.html
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/timeline.htm“1977: Scientific opinion tends to converge on global warming, not cooling, as the chief climate risk in next century”
Senate Committee Votes to Stop Polar Bear Trophy Imports!
Dear Weblogers,
Good news! Thanks to calls and emails from humane advocates like you, the Senate Appropriations Committee approved an amendment late yesterday to prohibit the import of sport-hunted polar bear trophies into the United States. The amendment, sponsored by Senator Jack Reed (D-R.I.), stops funding for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue permits for the importation of sport-hunted polar bear trophies. The funding cut is good for one fiscal year — which means it’s important that we permanently ban trophy imports by passing the Polar Bear Protection Act.
TAKE ACTIONOn the heels of our big victory, we can really press the case. Please make brief, polite phone calls to your two U.S. Senators and your U.S. Representative and urge them to co-sponsor the Polar Bear Protection Act.
Senator Sam Brownback, (202) 224-6521Senator Pat Roberts, (202) 224-4774Representative Todd Tiahrt, (202) 225-6216
Cosmos: I’m not arguing global warming. I’m challenging a silly, unprovable implication that global warming is responsible for the Greensburg tornado.
The “Super Outbreak was in 1974. But regardless, if you want to debate, it should be about the subject being discussed.
And let’s not forget that global warming causes war too:
“UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon offered his commentary with an article titled “A Climate Culprit In Darfur” in the Washington Post. Ki-moon insists the slaughter in Darfur isn’t just an ethnic conflict: It was also brought on by climate change.”http://www.thetrumpet.com/index.php?page=article&id=3325
outlander,
Sorry, I thought you agreed with the “deniers” “opinion” column you posted at,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/open-thread-624.html#comment-73821306
And repeated the 1970’s falsehood — “Weren’t we worried about globabl coooling…” here,http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/open-thread-624.html#comment-73832242
Were you trolled?
Gore’s legislation funded development of NCSA Mosaic, the hypermedia browser that made Web access much easier, and caused rapid growth of the ‘Net.
His photo is at this old (non-functional) 1993 demo of Mosaic.http://www.totic.org/nscp/demodoc/demo.html
And now for my brilliant energy saving idea. Pee in a large bottle, and at the end of 24 hours pour it all at once into the stool. The volumn alone will produce the flush, saving how many billions of gallons per year.
Evidently cosmos must be fairly new to computers as there were UNIX access to the WWW before Mosaic.
Before that there were Bulletin Board Services and services like Prodigy Online, Compuserve and etc.
The concept of the World Wide Web wasn’t invented by the GORACLE or any of his “funded” buddies.
Evidently cosmos has never accessed a UNIX computer from a PC to act as a protocol server to access the many services online.
Do yourself a favor cosmos, look up services like Compuserve, Prodigy and Bulletin Boards and the other online services that were there way before the GORACLE claimed to have invented the Internet.
Claim: Al Gore invented the internet
Status: False
Despite the derisive comments that continue even today, Al Gore did not claim that he invented the internet nor did he say anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way.
More at http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html
Vint Cerf, the father of the internet, claims that Gore was a prime mover in getting government funding for the internet.
Outlander–
Clearly, there were bad tornadoes in Kansas BEFORE CO2 levels increased leading to global warming happening right now.
BUT, the theory is that global warming would make the frequency and severity of tornadic storms worse.
And this is exactly what we see:
Dec. 30, 2004 — The total number of tornadoes reported in the United States reached a record high during the year 2004, surpassing the previous record by almost 300, according to officials at the NOAA Storm Prediction Center in Norman, Okla.
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2004/s2359.htm
BTW, outlander, were you homeschooled.
Yes or no?
That would be the number of recorded tornadoes Capn. Remember radar and all those other inventions weren’t around until after WWII for broad civil use.
Why don’t you read up on the Hurricane expert who quite the IPCC alarmists and the reasons why. Perhaps you will learn something Capn.
I know it is easier for you and cosmos to become sheeple and follow your GORACLE without question, but have a look anyway.
When you see it walking down the streetAnd you chance to meet
Walk on by, da dah da dahh dahh da
Walk on by, da dah da dahh dahh da
One cause of the increase in tornadoes in the last 30 years is the tremendous increase in tracking technology.
In the days before weather satelites, weather radar, then doppler, many tornadoes that were not seen did not get counted.
So, any reliable data you look at for your trend analysis is over the last 30 years or so.
Pretty short window in the scheme of climate time.
Republican,
List all the Web browsers BEFORE Mosaic that allowed EASY multimedia access. Click the icon, and get graphics, audio, etc.
NCSA Mosiac became the STANDARD. It became Netscape, and MS IE is “based” on Mosaic. Those standard, EASY access browsers fueled rapid growth of the ‘Net.
Prodigy, Compuserve, etc. interfaces died a well deserved death.
“Evidently cosmos has never accessed a UNIX computer from a PC to …”
I used Kermit on a PC to access a DEC system that I managed.
And have loaded programs using punch cards, and written in assembly language, and many other ‘flavors’.
We’re still waiting for your link(s)…
Post your link(s) proving your “large majority” claim — or you’ve again proven that you’re a Kansas “values” LIAR.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/open-thread-624.html#comment-73832078
How about stop saying that the GORACLE was the reason for the Internet to explode?
He wasn’t and just because he helped fund a browser says nothing about what happened to preceding 16 years with the Internet.
“I used Kermit on a PC to access a DEC system that I managed.
And have loaded programs using punch cards, and written in assembly language, and many other ‘flavors’.”
Impressive cosmos! You were a flunky that knows nothing about software or how to program. Wow cosmos, did you really walk across the room with a stack of punch cards? How much training did that take? :)
Ladies and gentleman the man that should have been the 43rd President of the United States and the man who will be the 44th President of the United States.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8eR48X_zXU
“And have loaded programs using punch cards,…..”
God Republican, you really are an old geezer.
???????? sorry to bust your bubble but the country isnt gonna vote for a half- breed nigger like obama
“And have loaded programs using punch cards,…..”
God Republican, you really are an old geezer.
Posted by: ???????????? | June 24, 2007 at 05:29 PM
No, that would be cosmos that is the old geezer.
Good God Wessell, what a slime bucket you are!
nixon now looks like a choir boy compared to the crooks occupying the WH now. it is really disgusting how they keep committing mroe and more crime. Worse is how the congress is not saying anything and letting them get away with it.
I hate all repukes
Now, now Wessell, I dont believe here is any call for using such blatantly racist language on this Thread… In fact, I know there is no call for it… Please stop??
Hello everyone!!!Well it’s been a couple of weeks since my last letter to the group. I just want to start off by saying that it has been one of the toughest times of my life and without your prayers I don’t think I would have made it this far. If it hadn’t been for the Lord that’s for sure. Keep your prayers up my friends. The Army is in a reaaly bad spot right now. What we hear our leadership telling the American people isn’t the case at all really. The common line soldier is not being heard. I want you to know the truth. The truth from a soldier from the gound in the middle of Baghdad. We are not making progress. I can tell you from the last time I was here in 05 that we are fighting a whole new beast. Instead of a few individuals from a different land we are now fighting the whole country.
The streets are empty. The people that supported liberty and freedom have long been killed or have moved. I cleared a group of houses the other day that was at least 50% abandoned. The only people that seem to want us here are the people we put in power. How is this a Godly war? How is forcing our way on another country that doesn’t want us here the right answer. Sure the government we put in place needs our help, yet we gave them power for which they aren’t inclined to give up too easily. This county is in the middle of a civil war. They tell us we are on Iraq’s side. Well Iraq wants to be free to fight their own battles, Sunni and Shiite alike.
All this being said it’s not the fight for freedom that upsets me. If I saw citizens dragging terrorists in the streets and wanting Liberty I would gladly give my life for that cause. That is not the case at all. The people keep thier mouth’s shut and therefore the Terrorists leave them alone. Thats all they want anyway.
Well a Army is held together by a “cause” . A cause to hold the soldiers together, a cause to give them some cause for sacrifice. Four of my close friends gave that sacrifice the other day. Death is part of a soldiers life. It is the accepted risk. The price for Liberty. The hardest part has been justifying thier sacrifice. Is so many good many lost worth the freedom of a country who doesn’t really want us here. I say no.
When is this going to stop? When is enough, enough? Please we need your help. The common soldier needs your help. The soldier that signed up to serve and protect his country with no political gain needs your help. The command is not representig the truth. They are representing thier careers. It is costing you your son’s and daughter’s lives. Please stand up and help us. Bring us home!! Bring your sons and daughters home…..it’s time.
I am a believer in my Christ Jesus. I pray everyday that the Lord will bring His wisdom down on the leadership of our country. I believe that these people have seen nothing but violence their entire life. How are we bringing them any difference. Christ looked at the individual. We need to help this country one person at a time with the love of Christ. The Lord will bring His Judgement when the time is right. There are good people here, yet they are ruled by fear. They need Christ’s love.
I dont think they have the burdon of liberty on their hearts yet. You have to want, desire, and yearn for Liberty and be willing and ready to sacrifice everythig for that cause. That is what I don’t see. It has a heavy cost and it cannot be bought by anyone butyourself. Please send this to whomever you please, The county need to know the truth. In fact, please send this out to as many people as you want.
In HimSGT Walker, JasonB CO 1-64 AR BN
Number of Americans who believe Saddam-9/11 tie rises to 41 percentJosh CatonePublished: Sunday June 24, 2007
A new Newsweek poll out this weekend exposed “gaps” in America’s knowledge of history and current events.
Perhaps most alarmingly, 41% of Americans answered ‘Yes’ to the question “Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?”
That total is actually up 5 points since September 2004.
Further, a majority of people couldn’t identify Saudia Arabia as the country of origin of most of the 9/11 hijackers, even given the question in multiple choice format. 20% answered Iraq, while 14% believed the hijackers came from Iran.
A majority (52%) believe the US is losing the war against al Qaeda, however Newsweek disagrees. In the magazine’s reporting of the poll, they made judgment that the US is in fact not “losing the fight against al-Qaeda or radical Islamic terrorism.”
Closer to home, 89% of Americans are unable to name the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (John Roberts), though a majority of those polled were able to name Nancy Pelosi as the current Speaker of the House.
A large majority of people said they didn’t know or didn’t care who the winner of this year’s American Idol competition was (or at least weren’t willing to admit it).
Joseph Goebbels at work.
People are stupid!!
America is doomed.
The Newsweek Poll.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19375611/site/newsweek/
????????????,
I did Fortran programming on punch cards for some college classes in the 1970’s. You had to be careful not to drop (scramble) them!
Did some Win32 API programming a few years ago. It was a lot more fun, and fairly easy once you understand the basics.
http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/1993″Mosaic takes the Internet by storm (22 Apr); WWW proliferates at a 341,634% annual growth rate of service traffic. ”
Obviously the growth after 1993 was no different than the “preceding 16 years”. /sarcasm OFF
http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/#Growth
Nathan, you dolt,
For a missile defense system to work, there must be some ballistic missiles to shoot down. If you’re going to pint to those countries, you’ll also have to point to the ballistic missiles with the nuclear weapons mounted on them. To date, N. Korea has fired off a ballistic missile that can’t reach the US, and no missile defense would stop a missile launched at Japan, or the East Asian portion of the continent. The other countries aren’t even close.
As to the cost…the United States may have deep pockets, but we’re in deep debt. In order to help bring the debt down every agency is going to need to look very hard at the value of programs. I supplied you with at least two web sites…from an organization of physicists and one that had a downloadable .pdf stating to Congress that missile defense doesn’t appear practical at this point. So, given that we have shortages in basic military needs, like ammunition, armored vehicles, medical care for vets, and body armor, for example, it would be far wiser to put the money here.
Now as far as ignoring the testing, the success rate would need to be very close to 100%. You only need one 20 megaton warhead to get through to defeat the purpose of the shield. The success rate has been, ummm, far less than 100% on somewhat rigged experiments.
As to abortion…mental health IS ALSO an aspect of physical health. The decision is often necessary to prevent many types of mental abnormalities resulting from the pregnancy error…like depression (depression isn’t just being sad BTW, it is a pervasive loss of hope in the future that makes death look better than life), or other serious disorders.
As to your religious comments, your prejudice is showing. Somehow you assume that you are going to heaven and others, esp. not of your faith, are not. Enough said.
As to Bush, of course the wiretaps were illegal..Ashcroft, his deputy, and others at DOJ were uncomfortable with the original program that they refused to sign off the second time..It took weeks of negotiation to come up with a program acceptable to DOJ.
As to what torture is? You’re a riot. An idiot, but a riot.
What’s that cosmos?
You are saying that there were 341,634 copies distributed aren’t you? 341,634 percent does sound more impressive though doesn’t it?
Kind of like your percentages you use explaining your IPCC UN theories. Make it sound really huge, until you compare it to other figures. :)
I mean fractions of a percent on a chemical compound that is measured in parts per million doesn’t sound very impressive. You have to dope it up where it’s more scary. Right cosmos? :)
Well Capn, I had to check out your claim about 2004 being a record year for number of tornadoes. I was mildly surprised to see that it was. But then 2005 and 2006 went back to about average or below average. What happened, global cooling?? So you have proven nothing, other than you will pick and choose data. Incomplete statistics lie, which seems to work well for you.
The steady increase in number of tornadoes over the decades is attributed to better reporting and better tracking technology as well as the sprawling of the population. But in complete contradiction to your implication, the number of large damaging tornadoes has significantly decreased.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/95101.pdf
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/climo/torn/monthlytornstats.html
So Capn, are you still claiming that man made global warming is responsible for the Greensburg tornado??
Good grief.
“The World Wide Web began as a CERN project called ENQUIRE, initiated by Tim Berners-Lee and Robert Cailliau in 1990. Berners-Lee and Cailliau were jointly honored by the ACM in 1995 for their contributions to the development of the World-Wide Web.
Based on the concept of hypertext, the project was aimed at facilitating sharing information among researchers. The first website went on-line in 1991. On 30 April 1993, CERN announced that the World Wide Web would be free to anyone.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CERN
And, btw, I’ve checked out the CERN website, and the above is verified there and other places.
Why didn’t the conceal-carry guys take him out like they promised to do?Posted by: happy | June 24, 2007 at 08:55 AM
Show me where anybody in Kansas made a promise like that.
Republican,
You don’t understand what quote marks, and ; mean?
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/open-thread-624.html#comment-738486261993″Mosaic takes the Internet by storm (22 Apr); WWW proliferates at a 341,634% annual growth rate of service traffic.”
A “341,634% annual growth rate of service traffic” seems reasonable, since Mosaic allowed very EASY transfer of large graphic, audio, etc. files.
If you disagree, then prove that Robert H’obbes’ Zakon is wrong.
We’re still waiting for you to post your link(s) proving your “large majority” claim — or you’ve again proven that you’re a Kansas “values” LIAR.http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/open-thread-624.html#comment-73832078
But we know you wont. You gave us another example of your Kansas “values” LIES.
You’re just a loser, and a chronic LIAR who uses :) all the time.
Re the first post, and follow-up:
1) It may or not be an automatic weapon; most reporters don’t know the difference between an automatic weapon (think full-auto M-26, AK-47) and an autoloading weapon (AR-15, must about any pistol). If it’s full auto, yes, that’s a problem. It points out, however, that gun control laws only control those who obey the law, and they’re not the problem.
2) The strawman lie trotted out yet again:
“”I agree, but the conceal-carry supporters’ argument was that they would confront violent crime and stop it.”
Well, that was their argument but they really wanted to just carry the guns around because it makes them feel macho.
Posted by: Doug | June 24, 2007 at 12:03 PM”
I know of NO CC supporter who has claimed same. That’s your strawman, not the argument of those who support CC.
Well, finally the real scoop on man made global warming!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IET1uKHPqc8
Sorry,
The boy used Momma’s laptop and I didn’t catch it. The link to Carlin was me.
Hank
lol Nathan. :D
“large majority” claim — or you’ve again proven that you’re a Kansas “values” LIAR.Posted by: cosmos | June 24, 2007 at 09:12 PM
Then call this PhD a liar Cosmos. I know you will, because you are a lunatic fringe E.L.F. terrorist identical in ideology to the unibomber.
http://www.sepp.org/Archive/NewSEPP/Bray.htm
THE NOT SO CLEAR CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE
These results, i.e. the mean of 3.62, seem to suggest that consensus is not all that strong and only 9.4% of the respondents strongly agree that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes. This is however, a slight rise in consensus of the same survey conducted in 1996 [4] that resulted in a mean of 4.1683 to the same question (Five countries USA, Canada, Germany, Italy, and Denmark only in 1996 survey, N = 511).
In the 1996 survey only 5.7% of the valid responses strongly agreed that climate change is mostly the result of anthropogenic causes.
In fact, the results of the two surveys even question the Oreskes claim that the majority of climate scientists agree with the IPCC, although this has improved somewhat between 1996 and 2003. In the 1996 survey only 8.2% of the valid responses strongly agreed with the statement that the IPCC reports accurately reflect the consensus of thought within the scientific community while in 2003 the number rose to 22.8%. While there is a shift to a greater level of consensus, the results do not substantiate Oreskes claim. Lacking in Oreskes approach to analysis is any notion of the dynamics of scientific consensus.
HEHEHEHE, Republican,
The letter was submitted to Science but it was rejected. Here is the header on the URL you posted
Letter by Professor Dennis Bray,GKSS Forschungszentrum, Geesthacht, Germanysubmitted to Science on 22 December 2004,but not acceptedhttp://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/bray.html/BrayGKSSsite/BrayGKSS/WedPDFs/Science2.pdf
meaning that it was reviewed and deemed not worthy of publication in the journal.
Oh well…you win some you lose some.
Cosmos-
I’m not picking any dog in this fight, but i have two questions.1) do you think (I have no idea-hence the question) that they would actually publish a dissenting opinion
2) Not really a quesiton. I couldn;t get the link to work
Thanks
Sorry, that was for BFAH, not cosmos. My bad
BFAH,
‘Science’ rejected it, so SEPP published(sic) it.http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SEPP
Dennis Bray’s survey??
‘Useless on-line survey of climate scientists’http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/And Bray did NOT ask what Republican claimed:
“the latest news is that a large majority of these peer-reviewed scientists are extremely miffed at the IPCC for misquoting them and taking their scientific papers out of context or as completed works.”
Posted by: Republican | June 24, 2007 at 12:44 PMhttp://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2007/06/open-thread-624.html#comment-73830210
Republican = Kansas “values” LIAR!
LJ,
Your question is answered in the stats of Republican’s posted survey. If only 9.4% of climate scientists are strongly convinced and on average about 50% think man might be the cause of climate change, then you are assuming that Science’s editorial board and reviewers are drawn from a skewed pool of people (only the believers in climate change). First, why would you assume that Science has a vested interest in climate change being due to man’s activities, and 2) are you implying that the journal is being unethical in sending the letter out for review to only those who’ll view it negatively? Remember Science is one of the most exclusive scientific journals in the world.
Cosmos, thanks for the info. I couldn’t follow the direct link on Repub’s page to try to find out if it ever was published.
BFAH,
No, I am not implying any sort of thing that they are unethical. What I am implying, if anything, I guess, is that minds that think alike, gather unto themselves, not because of some “conspiracy” but because they believe in what they are doing, and reject notions not in keeping with their own as non “science” or non “whatever” Not as an intentional bias, but as an unintintonal filter. This happens to all groups, whether we want to believe it or not. As I said,I have no dog in this fight. I think that man is probably contributing to global warming. TO that end, we should find technological and personal answers to lower our contribution. Are there other causes>? I think so. But that does not alleviate our responsibilities. Do I believe in the wholesale, quick change advocated by some, no.Don;t assume that because I ask a quesiton, I believe anything. It was sincere quesiton.
LJ,
Sorry if I offended. I was kinda stating and asking rhetorically.
What you say is true, except, in this case, if the numbers are right, the Science would have consciously had to choose to send it to those who would deny it publication since, on average, 50% of scientists can be expected to concur withthe letter writer. In addition, I’ve published a fair amount, and editors are scrupulous to make sure they get a balanced view. Often, even a paper that is ultimately accepted gets rejected the first go round or two. You, the writer, are then free to write responses to the critiques of the paper and try to clarify things so that the reviewers will accept it; you can rewrite sections to satisfy reviewers’ complaints; or, you can often ask to have the paper re-reviewed, and suggest a group of people who would be knowledgeable on the subject at hand (i.e. you can suggest only people who agree with YOU). While the editor is under no obligation to send it to any of your suggested referees, he usually will send it to one or two. If after all this you still can’t get it published, it’s because it has serious faults.
The journal ‘Science’ probably rejected Bray’s survey because it wasn’t done scientifically.
http://timlambert.org/2005/05/bray/“Since the survey was anonymous, there is no way to ensure that only climate scientists participated and no way to prevent people from submitting the survey multiple times. Furthermore, the survey was distributed on the climatesceptics list which has over 200 members, almost all of them strongly skeptical about global warming. Since the total number of participants was just 557, this could serious skew the results. I don’t believe that the results of this survey are representative of the views of climate scientists.”
And the questions were vague, such as no timeline re climate change.
BFAH-Thank you for enlightening me to the process. I really had no idea.And thanks also to Cosmos, for further information as to why this paper may have been rejected.